The View From Here

In 2015, females accounted for 82.2% of Board Certified Behavior Analysts (Nosik & Grow, 2015, "Prominent Women in Behavior Analysis: An Introduction," The Behavior Analyst, 38, 225-227). Females represent most certificants, yet their presence in research and on editorial boards for peer-reviewed journals is lower than males' presence (Li, Curiel, Pritchard, & Poling, 2018, "Participation of Women in Behavior Analysis Research: Some Recent and Relevant Data," Behavior Analysis in Practice, 11, 160-164). Various contingencies are certainly involved, which may include instances of sexism or gender-based discrimination. Despite behavior analysis having the means to change contingencies that reinforce sexism, the discipline is not adequately taking cultural contingencies into consideration. As a result, behavior analysis is simultaneously part of the problem and the potential solution. Moreover, behavior analysis has not adequately studied sexism and its subtle topographies despite sexism being a long-existing behavioral phenomenon. The purpose of the current paper is to provide a behavioral account of sexism, particularly in the field of behavior analysis. Feminism as a culture and views of feminism from males and females will be further examined, as well as their implications for behavior change. Finally, recommendations for cultural and individual change will be discussed to promote gender equity.

The Behavior Analyst Certification Board (BACB) Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts (2020) guides our practice and our professional responsibilities, and some certificants of the BACB may experience possible conflict between engaging in ethical practice and organizational policies at their place of employment (Greeny et al. Behavior Analysis: Research & Practice, 22(4), 368-381, 2022). An ethics coordinator (Brodhead & Higbee, Behavior Analysis in Practice, 5(2), 82-88, 2012), ethics committee (Cox, Behavior Analysis in Practice, 13(4), 939-949, 2020), or ethics network (LeBlanc et al., Behavior Analysis in Practice, 13(4), 905-913, 2020) could help mitigate such conflict. In this article, we described the formation of our organizational ethics network, based on the network developed by LeBlanc et al. (Behavior Analysis in Practice, 13(4), 905-913, 2020). We also reported on the use of our ethics hotline during the first year of the network, showcasing the possible cross-level and cross-departmental collaboration with occasional organizational change that occurred related to situations submitted to the ethics hotline. We concluded with our reflections and considerations for other practitioners or organizations who want to establish an ethics network.

Master's-level Board Certified Behavior Analysts(®) were emailed an anonymous webbased survey regarding the journal Behavior Analysis in Practice (BAP). Following a 96-hour response window, 284 completed surveys were obtained. Data revealed that many participants regard the journal as beneficial to their profession, yet considered it too expensive and in need of a sharper focus on practitioner issues. Most supported BAP's emphasis on empirical research, and many recommended additional content areas such as clinical case formulations, objective product information, and a layout that blends the features of an empirical journal and a popular magazine. In summary, this survey indicates that, as a practitioner-oriented journal, BAP has the potential to occupy a valuable niche for master's-level behavior analysts and that journal leaders might enhance its value by modifying its marketing, content, and structure.

As the seventh year of Behavior Analysis in Practice (BAP) comes to a close, it feels as if we are somewhat retracing our steps in attempts to define BAP’s mission as a journal. The journey to this place has seen a few iterations of mission, or at least outcomes of the mission. My first issue as editor revealed a haunting reality—most practicing behavior analysts never heard of the journal or did not care about the journal. Given that this was the very population BAP attempted to target, the data were eye-opening. As a result, my editorial team has made a radical transformation of the journal into an outlet that we feel practitioners cannot afford to ignore. Easy access options via Springer’s digital format and radically quick submission to publication timelines, BAP now delivers the field’s emerging research and practice like never before. Furthermore, regular issue features such as product reviews, field reports from the editors, and thought provoking Ask the Experts dialogue provide the BAP reader with a multifaceted intellectual and practical experience.

Behavior analysts continually assess the needs of clients and the community at large. Some behavior analysts have educated themselves and become public policy advocates at the local, state, national, and international levels. Across the world, behavior analysts are meeting with legislators to educate them on behavior analytic solutions to societal problems, including but certainly not limited to why people need behavior analytic services. Incorporating a behavior analytic perspective into policies supports best practices in many areas and creates a more humane, positively reinforcing environment for all. Papers published in this special issue of Behavior Analysis in Practice on public policy advocacy demonstrate how such work has positively affected society across the globe. Such work has involved credentialing and regulation of behavior analysts, funding for ABA services, and increasing service capacity. Authors discuss their public policy advocacy efforts, share lessons learned, and discuss implications for future efforts. Many behavior analysts may be unaware of the importance of being involved in public policy and advocacy and how they can make a difference for the benefit of society. Behavior analysts are urged to learn from the work described and adapt and apply it in their community.

J. B. Leaf et al. (Behavior Analysis in Practice, 9, 152-157, 2016) wrote a commentary on social thinking (ST), an intervention commonly implemented for individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The authors described what constitutes scientific, pseudoscientific, and antiscientific evidence and contended that ST aligns with the definition of pseudoscience and, to date, is not empirically supported or evidence based. Crooke and Winner (Behavior Analysis in Practice, 9, 403-408, 2016) responded, arguing that ST meets their definition of an evidence-based practice and identifying purported misconceptions and inaccuracies described by J. B. Leaf et al. In the current article, the authors clarify the original arguments, critically evaluate Crooke and Winner's definition of what constitutes evidence-based practice, further evaluate the research on ST, discuss issues regarding how ST is conceptualized, and express concerns about the endorsement and use of an eclectic approach to treating ASD. As this response was written by behavior analysts, it specifically addresses the conceptual consistency of this approach from a behavior-analytic worldview.

The study and application of procedures that result in stimulus relations via relational frame theory (RFT) and stimulus equivalence (applied as equivalence-based instruction; EBI), have made tremendous strides in contemporary behavior analysis. However, applications at scale lag basic and translational research. We turn our attention inward to investigate potential causes. We replicated and extended Enoch and Nicholson (Behavior Analysis in Practice, 13(3), 609-617, 2020) by conducting a survey of behavior analysts (n = 129) to determine their perceptions, experiences, and barriers in carrying out research and practice based on RFT and EBI. Participants indicated an interest in RFT and EBI, and mostly perceive both within the scope of behavior analysis. A majority of behavior analysts reported formal education in EBI (78.3%), in contrast to a minority in RFT (15.5%). Adoption of procedures derived from RFT and EBI may be in proportion to formal education. Compounded with a lack of accuracy on basic knowledge questions, there is a potential gap in capacity in the field in addressing behavior related to complex verbal behavior.

Quigley and colleagues (2024, Behavior Analysis in Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-024-01001-4) described a treatment recommendation scenario within a multi-disciplinary team setting for an adult with a developmental disability. The authors presented the information in a standard format to share how the involved parties identified, evaluated, and responded to the recommendation based upon their understanding of ethical decision-making. This commentary highlights a number of important strengths that played a key role in the successful resolution of the challenge discussed by Quigley and colleagues. It further highlights some of the reasons clients may be drawn to non-evidence-based interventions and cautions behavior analysts to approach such situations with care. Though behavior analysts should not themselves provide non-evidence-based interventions, inordinate pressure on clients to avoid such interventions may constitute a form of coercion and may undermine clients' trust in behavior analysts.

Treatment integrity is the extent to which procedures are implemented in a manner consistent with their prescribed protocols and is necessary for reaching accurate conclusions regarding functional relations between dependent (i.e., behavior) and independent (i.e., the environment) variables. Several studies assessing the frequency that studies report treatment integrity have been conducted. However, no review has included articles from Behavior Analysis in Practice. Thus, the current study reviewed Behavior Analysis in Practice between 2008 and 2019 to assess the frequency of studies reporting treatment integrity data. A total of 193 articles consisting of 205 studies met the inclusionary criteria for this review. Ninety-six studies (46.83%) reported treatment integrity data, compared to 193 (94.15%) that provided interobserver agreement data. Additionally, 98 studies (47.80%) were considered high risk for treatment implementation inaccuracies. Recommendations and implications for research and practice are discussed.

The need to bring behavior analysis to scale is no more obvious or urgent than now. Collaboration between behavior analysts and healthcare workers, educators, policymakers, mental health clinicians, social workers, and so many other professionals is critical to reaching under-resourced and traditionally marginalized populations. First, however, interprofessional collaboration must be adopted widely and reinforced within the behavior analytic community. Disciplinary centrism and hubris pose barriers to effective interprofessional collaboration, leading one to assume the position that practitioners of the same discipline are better trained and smarter than those of a different field. However, cultural humility (Wright, Behavior Analysis in Practice, 12(4), 805–809, 2019) is an alternative to disciplinary centrism that allows professionals to retain identities born of cultural histories and training (Pecukonis, Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 40(3), 211–220, 2020). Furthermore, cultural reciprocity is a process of self-observation and collaborative inquiry that involves questioning one’s own assumptions and forces individuals (and professions) to confront the contradictions between their values and their practices (Kalyanpur & Harry, 1999). In this paper, we revisit the call for Humble Behaviorism first made by Alan Neuringer in 1991 and the recommendations of fellow behavior analysts since. Specifically, we introduce a framework of cultural reciprocity to guide humble behaviorists as they acquire behaviors necessary to establish and maintain productive interprofessional relationships. We encourage them to act on their ethical and moral duties to address social problems of global concern and bring behavior analysis to scale.

Rosenberg and Schwartz (Behavior Analysis in Practice, 12, 473–482, 2019) criticize a number of aspects of the Behavior Analyst Certification Board’s Professional and Ethical Compliance Code for Behavior Analysts and propose, as an alternative, a decision-making process for evaluating the ethicality of behavior under a particular set of circumstances. We respond to the authors’ main criticisms and discuss the broader professional and legal context of any profession’s ethics code and enforcement activity.

Tarbox, Szabo, and Aclan (Behavior Analysis in Practice, 1-22, 2020) provide a compelling rationale for the inclusion of Acceptance and Commitment Training (ACTraining) within the scope of behavior analytic practice to address experiential avoidance in clients and parents. We agree with the main tenets of the authors' argument, and suggest that ACTraining may be particularly beneficial if applied with frontline staff in behavior analytic service settings. We provide a brief overview on the precedent for ACT in the workplace, but conclude by underscoring the need for considerable curricular development in graduate training programs so that behavior analysts can implement ACT with integrity.

The goal of Behavior Analysis in Practice's special issue on the education of behavior analysts is to highlight a variety of works on the topic of teaching and mentoring students in behavior analysis. The special issue is composed of empirical studies that evaluated teaching procedures aimed at the effective training of behavior analysts; surveys focusing on the content of training programs, including common readings and other components; and commentaries on topics pertaining to teaching and mentoring behavior analysts. Several themes emerged across the issue, including (a) a focus on knowledge of basic principles of behavior analysis, (b) the direct application of operant-based principles in the teaching and mentorship of behavior analysis students, and (c) a significant emphasis on the meaningful application of behavior analysis.

Approximately 10,000 new behavior analysts entered the field in 2021 alone, accounting for nearly 20% of the current workforce. As the field of behavior analysis continues to experience exponential growth, it is critical that organizations develop infrastructure to support the professional development of novice practitioners and the delivery of high quality and ethical services for patients. Although it is ultimately the responsibility of the individual practitioner to determine and practice within their own scope of competence, research indicates that many behavior analysts do not receive the necessary training and case oversight to adequately manage some of the patients assigned to them, particularly those with severe challenging behavior (Colombo et al. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 14(1), 11-19,2021). Practitioners with inadequate training and oversight may be at risk of adopting restrictive procedures to manage seemingly intractable behaviors when less restrictive evidence-based treatment options are, in fact, available. This article describes the development of a procedural review panel (PRP) as an organizational strategy for aligning assessment and treatment procedures with ethical practice guidelines when working with patients with severe challenging behavior. Data from the first year of implementation were evaluated within an implementation science framework indicating that, within the current sample, the PRP process successfully mitigated the use of restrictive treatment procedures in 80% of cases and promoted the adoption of additional evidence-based practices in 79% of cases resulting in reductions across 72% of target behaviors across the sample.

When Behavior Analysis in Practice (BAP) was founded 15 years ago, questions were raised about whether a practitioner-focused journal was really needed to complement our field's well-established applied research periodicals. Like research journals, BAP publishes primary research reports for which scholarly citations are one measure of impact. Unlike most research journals, it also was intended to achieve dissemination impact, which implies influence on people who may not conduct research or leave behind citations. Using altmetric data as an objective measure of dissemination impact, we present evidence that BAP is becoming a leader in this domain among applied behavior analysis journals, and thus appears to be accomplishing exactly what it was designed to. We recommend explicitly relying on dissemination impact data to help shape the journal's future development.