Association for Behavior Analysis International

Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) is characterized by its hallmark emphasis on individualized services and programmatic change to address behavioral needs across diverse populations. However, the extent to which behavior analysts adhere to these principles warrants closer examination. This presentation seeks to contribute to this discourse by presenting findings from a systematic analysis aimed at evaluating the degree to which programmatic changes were made, as documented in treatment plans when the “data indicate that desired outcomes are not being realized” (Behavior Analyst Certification Board [BACB], 2020, P.12). This symposium will first present data on a post hoc review of two hundred and nineteen treatment plans to evaluate the extent to which programming changes were made when data was not trending in the therapeutic direction and how often those changes were made. Additionally, survey data will be presented on the current practices and reported challenges behavior analysts face when conducting procedural integrity as a first step to evaluating programmatic barriers. Implications for training and support regarding errors of omission in our procedural integrity practices will be discussed alongside pinpointed solutions.

Target audience is behavior analysts who currently oversee applied behavior analysis services for individuals with autism. The audience can be beginner

Ongoing visual analysis of data to evaluate client progress is a tenant of applied behavior analysis ([ABA] Cooper et al., 2020; Behavior Analyst Certification Board, 2020). While there has been a growing interest in understanding how behavior analysts conduct a visual analysis of the data (Vanselow et al., 2011) and, in turn, how these results may impact programmatic decision-making (Kipfmiller et al., 2019), there is still little consensus across the field of what some consider variable data and in turn warrants a programmatic change. This variability is of concern when considering the BACB (2020) 2.18 ethics code, which outlines that “behavior analysts [must] engage in continual monitoring and evaluation of behavior-change interventions. If data indicate that desired outcomes are not being realized, they actively assess the situation and take appropriate corrective action” (p. 12). However, little is known about how often programmatic changes are being implemented when the data is not trending in the therapeutic direction. To evaluate this, the researchers conducted a post hoc review of treatment plans submitted to an ABA agency in the Southwest United States by 14 providers over two months (December 2023- January 2024). A total of two hundred and fifty-six reports were first identified, with two hundred and nineteen meeting the phase one inclusion criterion. Results will review the number of targets included in the analysis, targets not trending in the therapeutic direction, and how often those changes were made.

Challenging behaviors exist along a continuum and may be conceptualized as externalizing behaviors producing significant impact on the individual, others, or the environment that can impact participation in home, school, and/or community activities. Referrals related to assessment and intervention for individuals with profound autism are common for behavior analysts; however, applying principles of behavior to these referral concerns can be complex. This panel, comprised of board members from the Applied Behavior Analysis International Challenging Behavior Special Interest Group, will discuss evidence-based practices related to assessment and intervention of challenging behavior for persons with profound autism spectrum disorder. Panelists will be prepared to discuss other considerations impacting care for this complex population including (a) staff, client, and stakeholder safety, (b) assent, consent, and compassionate care, (c) quantification of meaningful outcomes, and (d) increasing success in generalization settings. Last, the panel will discuss future considerations across the life span. Panelists will leverage lived work experience providing services for children and adults in partial hospitalization, clinic, school, and residential settings.

Behavior Analysts Psychologists

Centering human rights in behaviour assessment and support for individuals with challenging behaviour represents a pivotal shift in the field of applied behaviour analysis. This symposium examines the intersection of human rights and behaviour support, offering guidance to practitioners seeking to align their practices with contemporary rights-based frameworks. Drawing on the principles outlined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), this session underscores the ethical and practical imperatives of prioritising autonomy, dignity, and safety in behaviour support practices. Presenters will provide actionable recommendations to help behaviour analysts develop and implement plans that uphold the rights of individuals, include the voices and choices of individuals in the design and delivery of their own behaviour support services, navigate the balance between duty of care and dignity of risk, and apply non-aversive strategies during crisis situations. The presentations aim to equip participants with the knowledge and skills to embed human rights into their service delivery models, fostering a culture of ethical and compassionate practice that respects the individual values, needs and preferences of those they support.

Participants should have an intermediate understanding of functional behaviour assessment and behaviour support planning for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Participants should have experience conducting functional behaviour assessments and developing behaviour support plans.

Support teams face significant challenges in supporting individuals with complex behaviour support needs, particularly in balancing community safety, client empowerment, and rehabilitation. When this balance is not achieved, risk management often overshadows treatment and support, leading to reliance on restrictive practices that disempower clients, hinder skill development, and compromise their rights. This presentation explores rights-affirming approaches to risk assessment, emphasising the human rights model of disability and the importance of balancing duty of care with dignity of risk. We will examine how therapeutic environments responsive to individual needs—addressing trauma, skill deficits, and motivation—can foster autonomy and participation. By effectively engaging individuals in their own risk management, more meaningful outcomes and empowerment within ethical and therapeutic frameworks may be achieved. Participants will gain practical strategies for conducting risk assessments that prioritise dignity and safety while respecting individuals’ rights to take risks as part of a fulfilling life. By adopting these approaches, behaviour analysts can promote growth opportunities, reduce challenging behaviours, and create environments that uphold human rights.

Reactive strategies are often necessary when addressing challenging behaviour, yet traditional approaches (extinction and punishment) can undermine the dignity and rights of individuals. This presentation highlights the importance of adopting non-aversive approaches to foster trust, reduce the use of restrictive practices, and improve overall quality of life for individuals receiving support. Through data-based case examples, participants will explore how the use of non-aversive reactive strategies can rapidly reduce the rate and magnitude of challenging behaviour. Examples of ways to measure both rate and episodic severity, defined as the measure of intensity or gravity of a behavioural incident, will be provided. Episodic severity is an under-reported but potentially useful dependent variable in behaviour analysis research and practice. Emphasis will be placed on evidence-based practices that reduce harm and preserve the individual’s dignity during crises. By embedding these strategies into their practice, behaviour analysts can ensure that their responses to challenging behaviour are respectful, humane, and trauma informed.

The field of applied behaviour analysis (ABA) is fast evolving around the world. Development of the field internationally has been accelerated by a number of factors. Firstly, critics of ABA have called into question the social validity of professional practice based on the science of behaviour analysis, leading to a collective response within the field to reflect on the centrality of this concept in both research and practice. Professional skills for effective practice, beyond mastery of behavioural technology, have also been proposed as essential for behaviour analysts in response to criticisms. Secondly, the Behavior Analysis Certification Board (BACB) decision to revise their international focus in December, 2019 led to substantial efforts worldwide to develop country specific standards for training and practice in ABA. This, along with criticisms of the field, has resulted in efforts to develop values-driven, contextually appropriate frameworks and standards for training and practice. The first presentation in this symposium will reflect on criticisms of ABA as well as key values and perspectives in the field. The second presentation will communicate the results of qualitative research investigating behaviour analysts’ perspectives of core values and ethical frameworks essential for practice in Ireland.

Individuals at all levels involved in the provision of ABA services - RBT's, BCaBA's, BCBA's.

Behaviour analysis has been subject to considerable criticism in recent years. This paper sets out to discuss key values, concepts and perspectives in the field that are essential for current behaviour analytic practice, while highlighting and acknowledging necessary improvements for practice and training. These include the importance of behaviour analysts (BAs) focusing on social validity outcomes; the value of consumer opinions, alongside collaborative and relationship-based practice; the importance of proactive, function-based interventions that take into account learning histories; and the use of system-wide, quality of life interventions, including capable environments. This paper highlights areas where behaviour analysis needs further focus to ensure adherence to the underpinning values of the science and to continue to evolve as a science of behaviour grounded in clear and modern humanist values. This paper additionally reflects on the later development of behaviour analysis in the UK and Ireland and the influence of positive behavioural support (PBS) in graduate teaching and service application to develop values-based practice.

According to recent demographic studies, emergency physical restraints (PR) are still widely used, with prevalence rates ranging from 11%–78% across service sectors (Fitton & Jones, 2020). Behavior analysts may recommend PR when severe challenging behavior (CB) poses significant safety risks (e.g., intense aggression causing severe tissue damage; Behavior Analyst Certification Board, 2020; Vollmer et al., 2011). Most PR literature features inpatient psychiatric populations despite the prevalence of restraints among individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The current study partnered Rutgers University and Brock University. The multilevel analysis was informed by retrospective outpatient data (N = 12) from children and adolescents with intellectual and developmental disability who required emergency PRs. The study aimed to a) examine participant and restraint application characteristics and trends, and b) determine if CB severity at intake predicted latency to restraint application. Descriptive analysis results suggested most participants were experiencing polypharmacy, received moderate to high scores on the partnering agency’s CB severity tool, and primarily exhibited tangible or multiply controlled CB. Regarding restraint characteristics, the average restraint rate was 0.091 per hr. Regression results indicated that the median CB severity score significantly predicted latency to the first restraint applications. Clinical implications will be discussed.

There is a long history of individuals with extensive support needs (ESN) being sterilized without their knowledge and consent. Additionally, contextually inappropriate sexualized behavior (CISB) is fairly prevalent among individuals with ESN; estimates suggest that 18% to 28% of individuals diagnosed with intellectual or developmental disabilities (IDD) engage in these behaviors. Part of the reason this occurs is a lack of comprehensive sex education (CSE), limited awareness of individuals’ with ESN sexual development, and a lack of interventions to address sexual behaviors and build skills related to self-determination or informed decision-making. Panelists will discuss multiple aspects of addressing and supporting the sexuality of individuals with ESN, including identification of barriers to access, collaboration with other stakeholders, and proactive and reactive behavior analytic interventions to support individuals with ESN throughout sexual development. Based on their experiences as practitioners, researchers, and trainers, panelists will offer guidance on how to address specific barriers and implement individualized behavior analytic interventions effectively and ethically.

Individuals should have an understanding of basic ABA concepts and the application of behavior analytic interventions across multiple contexts. Individuals should also understand the different aspects related to collaborating with different stakeholders.

Card-playing aficionados typically consider stacking the deck as a form of cheating. However, when developing instructional methods, stacking the deck allows instructors at every level to prepare instruction with the best possible student outcomes. Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) provides multiple methods for stacking the instructional deck for teaching graduate students definitions, foundations, and applications of ABA. However, very little guidance is provided through research on how to stack the deck in ethics instruction in university training or in supervised fieldwork. This symposium provides methodological background on how to build a solid house of cards (i.e., a simulated ethics instruction method for graduate students), how to prepare your cards before showing your hand (i.e., preparation for conversations about unethical behavior); and how to play a good hand (i.e., how to teach the components of having conversations about ethics and the results of replications across 4 universities). Attendees will be provided with processes and results related to stacking the deck for designing ethics instruction and supervision.

The target audience covers all behavior analyst levels, basic-intermediate.

When a behavior analyst observes someone cheating (acting unethically), the behavior analyst may initially want to ignore or avoid the aversive situation. However, ignoring or escaping may result in significant risks for stakeholders, behavior analysts, and the field. “Showing Your Hand” through addressing the situation, confronting someone, or changing the situation typically requires preparing your cards before showing your hand. This symposium presentation addresses how to prepare your cards before showing your hand. We will review preparation, examples, and results of methods used within our researched ethics instruction including, (a) identifying the specific ethical issues, (b) determining risk of the ethical issues for stakeholders, (c) determining competence and related risk for the individual for addressing the issue, (d) analyzing possible functions of why people engage in unethical behavior, and (d) preparation for possible responses the behavior analyst may encounter. By properly preparing your cards before showing your hand, addressing ethical issues may go more smoothly and result in a winning hand.

Once a behavior analyst prepares their cards, it is time to show their hand to address ethical issues in conversations with other behavior analysts and stakeholders. With proper preparation of a good hand, an ethical conversation may have a higher chance of impacting and changing behavior. This symposium presentation addresses the replicated results from Schreck and colleagues (2023). The replication involved ethics instruction across four university-based applied behavior analysis graduate programs. Within all courses, students were taught to (a) evaluate scenarios for ethical code issues, (b) prepare for a conversation with an offending behavior analyst (OBA), (c) conduct a conversation with the OBA following scripted conversation components, and (d) record documentation and follow up information. Results indicated a significant improvement across students in their correct implementation of the scripted conversation components. With this type of ethics instruction, students can be taught how to conduct conversations about ethics and play a good hand.

Education is undergoing a seismic shift. As Artificial Intelligence (AI) transforms how knowledge is accessed and applied, traditional models rooted in passive knowledge transfer are losing relevance. For behavior analysts, this mirrors a core principle: environments shape behavior. As AI reshapes the educational environment, we must rethink the contingencies maintaining our systems of learning. This panel discussion will explore the profound implications of AI on education broadly and its specific impact on behavior analysis, asking: How do we maintain relevance in a world where “knowing the right answer” is no longer enough? Panelists will engage in a dynamic exchange about how education must transition from teaching answers to fostering inquiry and critical thinking. Drawing on parallels between traditional intraverbal training, Socratic instruction, and mand-based learning, the discussion will focus on how education’s new mission should equip students to ask the right questions. Using a case study of a European postgraduate program, the panelists will demonstrate how AI enhances behavior analysis education, fostering critical thinking, ethics, and real-world problem-solving with international relevance. Attendees will leave with insights into how AI challenges traditional pedagogical methods and practical strategies for reimagining education in behavior analysis.

This panel is being submitted in the "intermediate" instructions level. Below are a set of prerequisite skills and competencies for the audience: 1. Knowledge of Instructional Design in Behavior Analysis: Awareness of teaching strategies such as intraverbal training, mand training, and precision teaching. 2. Educational Reform and Technology: General knowledge of traditional educational practices and their limitations. 3. Ethical Considerations in Behavior Analysis: Understanding of the BACB ethics code, particularly in areas related to technological advancements and their implications for practice. 4. AI Basics and Applications: A general understanding of how AI works and its potential applications in education and behavior analysis. Some familiarity with examples of AI tools currently used in education or clinical practice. 5. Professional Competence in Behavior Analysis Education: Experience teaching behavior analysis concepts to students or supervisees.