Moving forward: Positive behavior support and applied behavior analysis.

Abstract

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. …