Perspectives on Behavior Science最新文献

Client well-being remains a central goal of research on the assessment and treatment of problem behavior. Although methodologies have evolved over the decades, the use of isolated- and synthesized-contingency functional analyses as a starting point remains debated. This article explores several factors potentially inhibiting consensus, the harm caused by division, and ways to shift the discourse regarding isolation and synthesis toward collaboration.

Feelings have long run high between many autistic advocates and behavior analysts. The former often experience and perceive ABA as harmful and traumatic in its methods, and prejudicial and stigmatizing in its objectives, with some of the latter retorting that criticisms reflect misunderstandings of the science rather than areas of true concern. The result? A deep and contentious conceptual divide, leaving little room for dialogue or progress. Recent months, though, have seen a tentative shift. Alongside recognition that behavioral interventions are so deeply entrenched that they are here to stay, some critical autism scholars are gingerly initiating public conversations with behavioral practitioners in a spirit of taking a pragmatic approach to meaningful reform. Further, a new generation of behavior analysts-including some autistic practitioners-is emerging, recognizing problems in their field, and considering how to address them. Interest in such developments is spreading and signals an opportunity for behavior analysts to follow other academic and advocate communities that recognize the importance of interdisciplinarity and critical self-reflection to evolve as a field. We-an interdisciplinary team of critical autism, neurodiversity, and behavior analysis scholars-feel that formalizing a broad field for scholars and practitioners sharing these ambitions holds potential. This field-let's call it Critical Behavioral Studies-would favor profound social, cultural, and historical understanding, a commitment to extend the scope of training to better contextualize practice in relation to the group served, and the self-examination that would bring meaningful change to the field.

This commentary critically appraises attacks on applied behavior analysis (ABA) from outside and-increasingly-within the field. Commonly repeated attacks are that ABA is coercive and suppresses individual identity, aligns with the medical model, causes trauma, and, in more extreme cases, constitutes abuse. We illustrate how these claims are based on unfounded criticism and longstanding myths about ABA and stand in direct contrast to the empirical foundations of behavior analysis. We also highlight how such criticism conflicts with over half a century of evidence that ABA supports autonomy and enhances wellbeing of people with autism and developmental disabilities. We call for self-reflection among well-meaning behavior analysts who repeat such criticisms and greater attention to evidence-based practice.

Behavior analysis and applied behavior analysis (ABA) have had many opponents since their inception. These opponents present challenges to the understanding and acceptance of our perspective and our professional practice. Asserting that behavior is a product of environmental circumstances is in opposition to our everyday language understanding of the cause of a person's behavior in that their behavior is determined not autonomous. From a clinical perspective this leads to finding environmental causes and then engineering procedures to produce socially meaningful change in behavior. This piece discusses some challenges from internal critics who place their brand of service above ABA.

Within a popular seven-dimension framework, applied behavior analysis (ABA) interventions have historically been characterized by a focus on socially important behaviors. We propose that an intervention does not truly count as applied until it is being widely used and the world has improved in some meaningful way as a result. This perspective places active dissemination of ABA, with the goal of promoting adoption, on equal footing with other defining features, making it functionally ABA's eighth dimension. According to this perspective, much of the work from ABA first 6 decades qualifies as pilot or developmental, with widespread adoption yet to be achieved. Successful dissemination will require some changes to ABA's modus operandi.

Trauma-informed care (TIC) refers to the guiding principles that inform how organizations or individuals arrange services with respect to acknowledging both the prevalence and potential effects of trauma on the people they support. Discussions about TIC have become increasingly prevalent in applied behavior analysis in recent years, suggesting that the topic is relevant to both our science and practice. However, research evaluating the degree to which TIC values are embedded in applied behavior-analytic work, and the relative benefits and potential costs of doing so, has been lacking. The purpose of this article is to provide some suggestions about how we might begin to fill that gap.

The development of applied behavior analysis (ABA) around the world can be conceptualized in various ways. One of these ways is how the field of ABA is developing towards a professional industry distinct from other professions, such as psychology. The international ABA community is a broad landscape of hundreds of diverse and culturally distinct national and regional communities with professional development in ABA progressing in unique ways. Some current examples highlighting various successes in the development of professional ABA will be discussed.

Results of quality behavioral intervention can be life-altering for our consumers. For our consumers to reach their fullest potential it requires that our interventionists are well-trained and that they are implementing behavioral intervention with a high degree of quality and fidelity. Practitioner training has evolved over the years and some of the standards appear to be improving. However, there are still numerous concerns with the training of behavior analysts. The purpose of this article is to describe some concerns with practitioner training and offer suggestions about how we can improve training within the field of applied behavior analysis.

In recent years, public concerns about applied behavior analysis (ABA) have intensified. This article argues that foundational principles of ABA require behavior analysts to take seriously these concerns and actively work to improve our practices. We provide an overview of ongoing reform efforts and examine how these efforts have led to the emergence of distinct brands within the field. Although these reformist efforts signal a commitment to ethical progress, they also raise concerns about the proliferation of competing credentials, conferences, and professional affiliations, which could increase confusion among clients, practitioners, and policymakers. We argue that although branding within ABA may be an expected and ultimately benign response to shifting ethical and practical norms, it also carries the potential to faction reformist efforts and further divide the field, rather than promote our collective advancement toward ever-better practices. Thus, our goals are to: (1) raise awareness around the potentialities of siloing advancements under competing labels, and (2) suggest that an integrated approach synthesizing reformist insights into a cohesive framework may have the greatest impact on advancing the whole field's understanding of best practice.