How has applied behavior analysis and behavior therapy changed?: An historical analysis of journals.

Abstract

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. …