Applied behavior analysis for childhood autism: Does the emperor have clothes?

Positive behavior support (PBS) developed in the 1980s and 1990s as an approach to enhance quality of life and minimize challenging behavior (Carr et al., 2002). Founded in 1999, Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions publishes both conceptual and empirical articles on PBS using a variety of methodologies (e.g., Baker-Ericzen, Stahmer, & Burns, 2007; Harvey, Baker, Horner, & Blackford, 2003; Vaughn, White, Johnston, & Dunlap, 2005), though single-subject designs are very common. One feature of JPBI that distinguishes it from other behaviorally oriented journals, including Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, is that the vast majority of published studies are conducted in natural settings rather than in clinical settings. This is not to suggest that research in laboratories or clinical settings is not important or valued; rather, it reflects an emphasis within PBS on external validity and contextual fit of interventions. As noted by Johnston et al. (2006), PBS has been associated with a great deal of federal funding and has been written into policy at the federal level. For example, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 maintains provisions for behavioral interventions and supports for children with disabilities who display problem behavior. Some states have also adopted statutes prescribing PBS for persons with disabilities. Further, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) of the US Department of Education has dedicated considerable funding to support PBS intervention, training, and research. Importantly, these developments did not come about as a result of campaigning by researchers within PBS, but rather because consumers (e.g., educators and parents) informed policy makers that PBS was having an important and durable impact on the lives of children. The PBS Controversy In recent years, a debate has evolved about positive behavior support and its relation to applied behavior analysis. Origins of the debate may be traced to the position that PBS is a new science, evolved from, yet different than, applied behavior analysis (ABA) (Carr et al., 2002). Although advocates of this position acknowledge the central influence of ABA in the heritage of PBS (Dunlap, 2006), they argue that the combined elements of PBS comprise a fundamentally new science to reduce challenging behavior. In response, some behavior analysts have countered that PBS is not different from ABA (Carr & Sidener, 2002). Proponents of this view posit that the procedures of PBS are largely, if not entirely, drawn from ABA and that attempts to conceptualize PBS as a new science have potentially harmful ramifications for the field of ABA. Furthering this view, other behavior analysts have described PBS as a direct threat to ABA (Johnston et al., 2006; Mulick & Butler, 2005). Accordingly, they imply that the successful dissemination of PBS as a new science will result in consumers' rejection of ABA. Moreover, because many PBS practitioners lack formal training in ABA, they argue, PBS interventions may result in deleterious effects for consumers. Diverging views have sparked debate among behavior analysts about PBS and its relationship to ABA. Although little direct evidence has been offered to support the claim that PBS is harmful to ABA, it is not unreasonable for behavior analysts to have concerns given these issues. The purpose of this paper is to allay these concerns by providing one perspective on the relationship between PBS and ABA. Unique contributions of PBS to the field of ABA are offered in conjunction with suggestions of how practitioners of PBS and ABA may work together for mutual benefit. Are PBS and ABA Different? PBS is an application of behavior analysis, which focuses on the core components of PBS identified in the literature (Anderson & Freeman, 2000; Anderson & Kincaid, 2005; Carr et al., 2002; Horner et al. …

Introduction Speech-language pathologists' (SLPs') academic study of language is heavily influenced by linguistic and cognitive viewpoints. A majority of textbooks and writings familiar to SLPs explore in greater detail the linguistic and structural view of language and offer only a limited summary of the behavioral view whose concepts and implications are not carried throughout the text. Most SLPs are well versed in the phonologic, morphologic, syntactic, and structures of language but are not equally well versed in the functional units that are basic to Skinner's (1957) analysis. Nonetheless, SLP's treatment methods are mostly behavioral (Hegde, 1998, 2008a). Inevitably, this has led to a conceptually inconsistent model of language and treatment of language disorders. Chomsky's (1959) critical review of Skinner's (1957) book--Verbal Behavior--is better known than the book itself. Most students and clinicians seem to be unaware of the invalidity of Chomsky's criticism or the competent responses given to his negative review (e.g., Anderson, 1991; MacCorquodale, 1969, 1970; McLeish & Martin, 1975; Palmer, 2006; Richelle, 1976). Rejoinders to his review have pointed out that Chomsky poorly understood Skinner's Verbal Behavior, behavioral methodology, and behaviorism. Chomsky's misunderstanding of Skinner's book and concepts was so severe that it would prompt most examination graders to read no further (Richelle, 1976, p. 209). Chomsky frequently attributed views of other psychologists to Skinner who had unequivocally repudiated them. In a questionable case of scholarship, Chomsky repeatedly misquoted Skinner (Adelman, 2007). More than four decades after he wrote the review, Chomsky was still a critic of Skinner, and with the same distorted understanding of Skinner's work (Virues-Ortega, 2006). A commonly held assumption among most linguists, and SLPs who follow them, is that Skinner's Verbal Behavior has faded into history. The fact, however, is that research on verbal behavior and treatment of verbal behavior disorders based on Skinnerian analysis are flourishing. Among several others in the Unites States, the journals of The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, The Behavior Analyst, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Behavior Modification, and several international journals on behavior analysis regularly publish many articles on the Skinnerian verbal behavior analysis and treatment. This journal, Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Applied Behavior Analysis is devoted to bridging the gap between the two disciplines. As Schlinger (2008a) has ably demonstrated, Skinner's Verbal Behavior is alive and well. An interesting observation Schlinger makes is that although both Verbal Behavior and Chomsky's (1957) Syntactic Structures had their 50th anniversary in 2007, Skinner's book on Amazon.com, has been selling better than Chomsky's. The verbal behavior approach to treating children with autism is now recognized internationally as the most evidence-based approach. Teaching almost all forms of communication disorders is essentially behavioral (Hegde, 1998, 2006, 2007; Hegde & Maul, 2006; Pena-Brooks & Hegde, 2007), whether some SLPs acknowledge it or not. In fact, if any tide has turned against something, it is the tide against Chomsky's generative linguistics. While Skinner's experimental and applied behavior analysis is thriving worldwide, Chomsky's generative grammar notion has disappeared from linguistics (Harris, 1993; Leigland, 2007). Chomsky's own multiple revisions and qualifications of his 1957 theory have moved away from a cognitive, generative, rule-based theory of language (Schoneberger, 2000). Within just a few years of Chomsky's Syntactic Structures was published, there was the generative semantic rebellion that denied the supremacy of grammar in language. (Linguists often describe newer approaches as revolution, war, rebellion.) Soon came the pragmatic revolution which asserted in the 1970s that language should be understood as actions performed in social contexts--mostly an arm-chair philosophical view which was still structural in its orientation. …

The field of Applied Behavior Analysis has evolved to the point of providing services in many organizations and educational settings in the United States. ABA is considered in a growing number of schools, provider organizations, and by states, as the most effective intervention approach for children with autism. Advances in the research have led to numerous applications of behavior analysis methodologies, and the creation of the Behavior Analyst Certification Board in 2000. Yet, despite certification setting a standard for competence in the practice of Applied Behavior Analysis, there are no established standards in the U.S. for organizations or agencies that provide ABA as a primary treatment approach. This paper presents a brief statement of the need and purpose of such standards for accreditation in the implementation of ABA services. Keywords: Applied Behavior Analysis, behavior analysis accreditation, treatment, autism services. ********** It seems to me that the time has come in the development and progression of the field of Applied Behavior Analysis to devise a broad-based set of standards of practice for the field. Other professions including the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, and The Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, have all developed practice guidelines and standards for providing treatment and services for its practitioner members. In addition, there are a number of models for service and treatment delivery which are approved for third party reimbursement by Managed Care Organizations and Insurance Companies. Oversight bodies in this country are used by such payers to ensure standards of service delivery are met, including the Joint Commission for Accreditation of Hospital Organizations (JCAHO), CMS (Formerly HCFA), and NCQA. With the exception of devising ethical standards, the Association for Behavior Analysis International has not devised a set of practice standards for its practitioner members. There appears in fact to be some opposition to moving towards supporting clinical practice of Applied Behavior Analysis amongst the leaders of the association due to concerns about legal liability, and to retain the image of the organization as primarily supporting interest in research and academics in the field. One significant advance in the field of Applied Behavior Analysis in the past five years that sets the stage for the need to devise practice standards, and for a form of accreditation, is the creation of the Behavior Analyst Certification Board (BACB)[TM] in 1998, by Gerald Shook. This board is now recognized in at least 8 states in the U.S., and in four other countries. The board established standards for certification of individual practitioners based upon the Florida Behavior Analyst Certification process devised by the Florida Department of Children and Families in the 1980s. The board offers two levels of certification, as many behavior analyst practitioners now are aware of, including Board Certified Associate Behavior Analyst requiring a minimum of a Bachelor's degree, and Board Certified Behavior Analyst, requiring a minimum of a Master's degree, from an accredited university program or independent course as approved by the BACB. The BACB has established a curriculum that must be minimally adhered to for candidates to be eligible for certification at each level, along with supervision requirements, and a set of ethical standards for practitioners it certifies. The BACB has not established standards of practice, but the state of Florida under the auspices of Florida DCF, have established standards of practice for applied behavior analysis, which is written in state law for recipients of service by the Developmental Disabilities division. Indeed, one could visit any of a number of different states or specific programs, facilities, schools, or other agencies that provide ABA services in the United States, and find various practice standards and quality measures. …

One need look no further than the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (JABA) to see that applied behavior analysts have largely ignored drugs as independent variables. Since the inception of the journal in 1968, less than a dozen studies primarily concerned with drug effects have graced its pages. This perhaps is understandable, for applied behavior analysis traditionally has involved the use of operant (or, less commonly, respondent) conditioning procedures to improve socially significant human behavior. Given this orientation, the majority of independent variables evaluated have consisted of response-consequence (reinforcement or punishment) operations. Pharamacotherapies are not easily conceptualized in terms of operant or respondent conditioning, and seem to imply faith in a medical model of behavioral problems that few behavior analysts share. We are nevertheless of the opinion that the research philosophy and analytical strategies characteristic of applied behavior analysis could serve as the basis for a fruitful science of clinical psycho-pharmacology. To demonstrate this, we will discuss seven dimensions of applied behavior analysis research as they relate to clinical drug evaluations. These characteristics were initially set forth by Baer, Wolf, and Risley (1968) in the inaugural issue of JABA, and serve as a set of goals for research in applied behavior analysis.1

Recently, the Czech Republic has moved toward establishing licensure and securing funding for the advancement of applied behavior analysis (ABA). However, the breadth and quality of ABA services remains limited. Most practitioners are providing in-home ABA services with irregular oversight, are working in regions without access to support and collaboration, and forming partnerships with parents that may result in dual relationships. In an effort to improve ABA provisions, a structured professional development curriculum was presented across six behavioral skills training (BST) workshops. Six practitioners working in the field of ABA and toward behavior analyst certification participated in the workshop series. In addition to advancing ABA in the region, the aim of the BST series was to pilot an adapted approach to professional development training using an extended format, practitioner-driven curriculum, and self-assessment checklist. The information was modularized and focused on the progression of establishing ABA services and development of skills associated with: moving through the intake process, assessment, behavior plan development, curriculum planning, and parent involvement. The validity and applicability of providing consultation services in this format for emerging behavior analytic markets was evaluated using practitioner-provided self-assessment. Despite limited data collection, the results indicate that the modified BST package was socially valid for the practitioners in the Czech Republic. This project may set the stage for future research in supporting new ABA practitioners in settings where the community of behavior analysts is small.

Applied behavior analysis and behavior therapy are now nearly a half century old. It is interesting to ask if and how these disciplines have changed over time, particularly regarding some of their key internal controversies (e.g., role of cognitions). We examined first five years and 2000-2004 five year period of Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (JABA) and Behavior Therapy (BT) and found: 1) a doubling of use of DSM diagnostic categories for both, with studies published in BT using these in a majority (51%) of titles; 2) a significant increase of studies published in JABA focusing on developmental disabilities (from 24.7% to 61.8%), but no such increase or predominate focus in BT; 3) a significant decrease in BT explicitly focusing on principles (51.8% to 12.5%) with JABA showing a sustained focus on principles (100% and 100%); and finally, 4) studies published in JABA showing little interest in studying newer conceptualizations (10.8%) in 2000-2004 five-year period. Implications for field are discussed and further discussion is encouraged. Keywords: applied behavior analysis, behavior therapy, principles, JABA, Behavior Therapy ********** Philosophers of science have suggested that disciplines can change over time. Sometimes there are sudden and dramatic scientific revolutions and sometimes change is more gradual (Kuhn, 1970; Popper, 1959). However, there have been few studies or comments about changes and historical consistencies in therapies. By behavioral we mean applied behavior analysis, behavior therapy, and cognitive behavior therapy. JABA is typically regarded as leading journal of applied behavior analysis, and BT as premier journal of behavior therapy. These therapies are nearly a half century old, practiced by a different generation of individuals (arguably third generation). Therefore, questions arise regarding how, if at all, therapies have changed over time. What similarities and differences exist between these two branches of therapies? This sort of intellectual activity is generally construed as meta-science and seeks to provide a look at behavior of scientists to see if anything interesting can be gleaned from this perspective (Radnitzsky, 1973). Moreover, there have been some long standing and significant controversies within these therapies. It is interesting to track changes in publication rates with respect to these controversies. Although there are a number of controversies, we chose four. One such controversy is related to the medical model and specifically use of diagnoses in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM; American Psychiatric Association, 1994). Criticisms of this practice have been long standing (see Krasner & Ullmann, 1965) and more current (e.g., Follette & Hayes, 1992). Critics have claimed that there is a fundamental inconsistency between a behavioral, functional description, and topographical, symptom checklist, clusters of behavior thought to underlie DSM diagnostic categories. Proponents of DSM categorization have ranged from pragmatic (e.g., some agencies rely heavily on it for grant funding) to more positive appraisals of its potential utility in research and practice (e.g., Blashfield & Draguns, 1976; Spitzer, 1999). To what extent has DSM influenced research in behavior therapies, and has this changed over time? One way to measure this is to examine use of DSM categories in journal titles (e.g., Panic Disorder with Agoraphobia), vs. other problem descriptions that do not use DSM diagnostic terminology (e.g., head banging). Another, more recent concern has been that behavior analysis has narrowed its focus, particularly in applied areas (Hayes, 2001). There is a long standing tradition of behavior analytic focus and significant success with developmentally disabled population. …

Introduction Over the course of the past decade, the field of Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) has become synonymous in the eyes of many parents, teachers and clinicians from other disciplines with treatment of autism. Many professionals in ABA do not fully welcome a narrow view of this applied science. However, it can be argued that this is partially a very good thing for our field. The perception of ABA as the most effective treatment for children with Autism Spectrum Disorders has come about as a result of the demonstrated effectiveness of the application of the principles and procedures consistent with the science of ABA (Lovaas, 1987; NYS DPH EIP, 1999: NRC, 2001). The lack of the identification of ABA as the most empirically effective treatment for other areas (e.g., and disorders), for which is it often applied, may stem from an absence of such data and formal application of our technology. Rather than lament the over identification of ABA with autism treatment, the more adaptive response would be to conduct the kind of empirical studies in the areas of and disorders that has served to bring ABA prominence in autism treatment. A major impediment to accomplishing this goal, in my view, is the lack of careful application of some of the tenets of applied behavior analysis to areas that typically described as psychological or emotional rather than behavioral. This needs to be addressed directly. As behavior analysts, we must be willing to use terms outside of our discipline, but insist on operational definitions for these terms when we use them. For example, a behavior analyst can treat a child who presents with a disorder by specifying the behavioral evidence of the disorder. Is it that the child is often happy, but becomes enraged when told or when there is a change in their schedule? Is it that they describe high levels of variability in their mood and would like to describe more stable levels?, or it is that the child behaves in certain ways more often than we would like (hitting, yelling, inactivity,) and describe this as evidence of a mood disorder? We can, if we choose to, make specific and measureable the evidence for the disorder/diagnosis, and then apply treatment. Subsequent evaluation of levels of the symptoms can enable us to determine empirically if treatment has reduced, increased or had no effect on these symptoms. Descriptive Differences between Behavior Analytic and Non- Behavior Analytic Approaches To understand why ABA based approaches to treatment of and issues less well accepted, we need to describe how behavior analytic and non-behavior analytic approaches fundamentally differ in terms of how professionals talk about (describe) and treat these issues. Before doing that we must confront the elephant in the room. What is a psychological or emotional issue? This argument can be phrased as are we treating the emotion/psyche or we treating behavior? If we step back just a little from this question we may be able to see that the treatment goal for both perspectives is to have treatment change behavior. Unfortunately, for behavior analysts the descriptions of treatment from a non-behavior analytic framework involves the use of descriptions of hypothesized mental processes. One of the fundamental tenets of our science is that we do not embrace such hypothetical entities such as mind and will, these terms refer to a possibly existing, but at the moment unobserved process or entity (Moore, 1995, p.36). While that may be how the question is correctly answered on the Behavior Analyst Certification Board exam, it is simply not what most psychologists believe and often not what some behavior analysts believe as well. Additionally the field of behavior analysis requires precise definitions and objective measurable outcomes (BACB, 2005). The treatment goal for many clinicians treating emotional and psychological issues may be that the patient self-reports to feel better as evidence of an improved condition. …

This paper addresses the relationship between the experimental analysis of behavior and applied behavior analysis. Citation data indicate that across time the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, and other experimental sources, have been referenced increasingly infrequently in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Behavior Therapy, and Behavior Research and Therapy. Such sources are now rarely cited in these journals, and never have been regularly referenced in Behavior Modification. Although their proper interpretation is far from certain, these data partially support recent suggestions that the experimental analysis of behavior and applied behavior analysis are largely separate, insular fields. A questionnaire, mailed to the editorial staffs of the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior and the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, was intended to gather further information about the alleged schism between the fields. Few respondents regularly read both journals, publish in both journals, or find both journals useful in their current research efforts. The majority of editors of both journals indicated that the fields were growing apart, although there was no consensus that this is harmful for behavior analysis. Most editors of the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis reported that research published in the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior has decreased in value to applied researchers across time; most editors of the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior indicated that research published there has not changed in applied value. Several respondents commented at length concerning the relationship of experimental and applied behavior analysis. These comments, many of which appear in the article, reveal a marked plurality of views.

The application of functional behavioral assessment (FBA) procedures for the purposes of developing interventions for students with emotional and behavioral disorders (E/BD) has received considerable attention since the 1997 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The purpose of this paper is to review the literature addressing the use of FBA with E/BD students in school settings and to discuss implications for a state of the art model that integrates empirically supported procedures with promising practices to be implemented within the ecology of current educational systems. Key Words: Functional behavioral assessment, functional assessment, functional analysis, indirect assessment, direct assessment, emotional disorders, behavioral disorders, descriptive analysis ********** Since the 1997 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), schools have been required to conduct functional behavioral assessments (FBAs) and develop positive behavioral support plans for students with disabilities who were exhibiting challenging behaviors that interfered with their learning or the learning of others. Additionally, cumulative suspensions equaling or exceeding ten days within a school year were considered a change in placement and required the IEP team to conduct the FBA within ten days of the change in placement for those students if a behavior support plan was not in place at the time of the infraction. The 2004 revision of IDEA, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, softened the FBA requirements to include only those students whose disciplinary infractions are manifestations of their handicapping condition. While the 1997 legislation did require the use of FBA for students exhibiting significant behavioral difficulties, it did not specify procedures or techniques to assess behavior for the purpose of determining function, thus no gold standard that details how to implement the mandate existed in 1997 and still does not exist. Some authors argue that the legislation was passed prior to the field having adequate empirical literature to demonstrate the use of these procedures with this population. In a review of 97 studies including 458 participants, Nelson, Roberts, Mathur, & Rutherford (1999) concluded that the research base on FBA with all populations was just emerging at the time of the mandate. To comply with the legislation, school districts throughout the country were forced to establish FBA procedures and identify or prepare personnel who could conduct FBAs and prescribe behavioral support plans based on those assessments. School districts essentially had two choices: develop professional expertise in functional assessment for their school personnel, or secure the services of behavior analysts. Much of the initial efforts aimed at conducting school based FBA modeled the type of applied behavior analysis typically reported in studies in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis with subjects with developmental disabilities (DD) (Gresham, 2003). Implemented practices in the schools relied less on research than on the cottage industry of FBA that grew out of legal necessity (Sasso, Conroy, Sticher and Fox, 2001). Increasingly then, developing forms of FBA and function guided behavioral intervention were proposed and evaluated in the research with greater rigor. At the same time, legal analysis of case law emerging since IDEA 1997 provided support for many aspects of what experts in the area would consider best practices. Etscheidt (2006) reviewed all cases from 1997 to present in which the development of a behavior intervention plan was the subject of the appeal. Several themes emerged from this review including the notion that, in students with IDEA eligibilities, behavior plans that include positive behavioral supports must be developed when behavioral needs are evident and the child's learning (or the learning of others) is impacted. …

Our 1980 paper arose from seminar discussions about basic and applied behavior analysis occasioned by Sam Deitz's (1978) article in the American Psychologist. Frank and I complained that the ABA meetings and the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (JABA) at that time seemed to be less concerned with contingencies of reinforcement (basic science) and more focused on clinical issues of treatment, helping clients, evaluation, and outcome. We decided to compile some evidence on the behavior of applied behavior analysts, using Volume 11 (1978) of JABA as our source. After coding articles and references in this volume, we found that the actual analysis of behavior was at low levels while cure-help behavior was flourishing. Armed with this evidence, Frank and I wrote the article in hopes of increasing the analysis in applied behavior analysis.

Millions of Americans are diagnosed with dementia, and that number is only expected to rise. The diagnosis of dementia comes with impairments, especially in language. Furthermore, dementia-related functional declines appear to be moderated by environmental variables (Alzheimer's Association, Alzheimer's & Dementia: The Journal of the Alzheimer's Association 8:131-168 2012; American Psychiatric Association, 2000; Engelman et al., Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 32:107-110, 1999; Engelman et al., Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 36:129-132, 2003) Traditional language tests are not likely to assess or inform treatment for deficits in manding (Esch et al., The Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Applied Behavior Analysis 5:166-191, 2010), and the mand is a verbal operant about which little is known among this population. The current study evaluated whether contriving an establishing operation within a preferred activity using a prompt-probe intermix procedure and a transfer of stimulus control procedure was effective in establishing mands in older adults with dementia. The procedure was demonstrated to be effective with one participant, but results were inconsistent with the second participant. Modifications were made throughout training for both participants, showing the importance of individualizing interventions.

Single subject design and visual analysis have become the standard for conducting and interpreting research in Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA). These methods can be traced in behavioral literature from the early 1900s and were revolutionized by Skinner’s philosophy of radical behaviorism. This ultimately led to a divergence in methods between behaviorism and the rest of psychology. Skinner’s divergence from conventional methods of research (group design and statistical analysis) may have historical underpinnings. His unique methods and philosophy led to the establishment of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior (EAB), Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) and the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (JABA). The prevalence of conventional methods of research in behavior analytic literature remains unknown. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to (1) report the history of research methods and data analysis in ABA and JABA and (2) analyze trends in methods within JABA to determine whether they are progressive.

The growing number of children diagnosed with autism and the recognized importance of evidence-based interventions has substantially increased the need for well-trained applied behavior analysts. Relative to public/consumer demand, there are very few higher education programs that are equipped to train behavior analysts specializing in autism. Worldwide, there are only a few programs accredited by Association for Behavior Analysis International (ABAI), that have course sequences approved by the Behavior Analysis Certification Board (BACB), and have formal institutional course approval for classes in autism and behavior analysis. The purpose of this paper is to introduce a series of expert commentary on the context, content and systems required to build quality higher education programs in autism and applied behavior analysis. Together the articles in this special section of the European Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis form a resource for faculty and university administrators interested in the development of innovative and socially relevant training programs in higher education.

Social validity serves as one of the critical aspects of applied behavior analysis (ABA) and should play a crucial role in informing interventions. Previous reviews have investigated the extent to which social validity assessments are employed in articles published in ABA journals such as the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (JABA), and these results suggest that social validity assessment in ABA-based practices often appears to be an afterthought. While previous reviews presented the frequency of social validity use in ABA literature, we need more investigations into the specific characteristics of the social validity assessments used or under used in research or practice. This review extends and supplements previous reviews by adding detailed analyses of four key aspects of social validity assessments (i.e. type, dimension, respondent, and time). Moreover, the current review examined whether any disparities exist concerning the key aspects of social validity assessments reported in journals focusing on research (i.e. JABA) and practice (i.e. Behavior Analysis in Practice; BAP). The findings indicate no discernible differences between JABA and BAP concerning four key aspects of social validity assessment. Implications related to research and practice of ABA regarding key aspects of social validity assessments are discussed.

A component analysis is a process that includes the addition or subtraction of individual intervention components while continuing to measure behavior change. Component analysis single case research experimentation is used in many of the social science fields including Applied Behavior Analysis. Yet, this design is used less than other single case research designs such as the multiple baseline design. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to map the scientific literature base pertaining to the component analysis single case research design. The present comprehensive review examined the use of component analyses in the scientific and gray literature. The authors identified 177 studies that met inclusion and were evaluated. Results indicate that most studies using component analysis experimental designs are published in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis and focused on non-punishment-based procedures. Additionally, the review demonstrates that outside of the field of Applied Behavior Analysis, component analyses are not widely used as an experimental method. The authors recommend expanding the use of component analyses outside of behavior analysis and examining the quality of studies in future research.