The Future of ABA: Will True Behavior Analysis Survive the Current Drift?

In the ever-evolving landscape of Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA), a 2019 video from the Daily BA featuring Hank Schlinger, a respected figure in the field, ignited a provocative discussion: Are Board Certified Behavior Analysts (BCBAs®) truly practicing behavior analysis as it was originally defined? Schlinger’s bold assertion that many BCBAs® are not engaging in genuine behavior analysis forces you to confront uncomfortable questions about the current state and future trajectory of our field.

As someone who has witnessed the transformation of ABA firsthand, I understand the confusion and frustration many practitioners experience today. When I embarked on my journey as a behavior analyst, the field was less contentious. However, the landscape has shifted significantly. Now, new BCBAs® often find themselves navigating a complex web of conflicting opinions, “rebranded” versions of ABA, and a growing divide among experts. Amidst this turmoil, one question looms large: Are we, as a collective, upholding the scientific rigor and integrity that once defined our field?

In this blog post, we’ll delve into the heart of this debate, exploring both sides of the argument. We’ll examine the fundamental principles of ABA, scrutinize Schlinger’s claims, and consider the implications for the future of our practice. Whether you’re a seasoned BCBA®, a student, or simply someone interested in ABA, this discussion is crucial for understanding the challenges we face and the path forward.

Key Takeaways

• There is a debate about whether current ABA practices stray from the field’s original principles.
• The debate centers on how much emphasis should be placed on analyzing behavior to understand its causes.
• Some argue that current practices focus too much on interventions without enough analysis.
• Others say that ABA has necessarily adapted to fit the needs of real-world settings.
• The future of ABA seems to depend on finding a balance between analysis and practical application.
• It is important to remember that ABA is a complex field with a long history.

Understanding the Different Branches of Behavior Analysis

To fully grasp the essence of the debate sparked by Schlinger’s comments, it’s essential to distinguish between 4 branches of Behavior Analysis: behaviorism, the Experimental Behavior Analysis (EBA), Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA), and professional practice guided by the science of behavior analysis.

Experimental Behavior Analysis (EBA)

EBA serves as the bedrock of ABA, the fundamental science from which practical applications emerge. As Baer, Wolf, & Risley articulated in their seminal 1968 paper, “The Seven Dimensions of Applied Behavior Analysis,” EBA is concerned with uncovering the fundamental principles that govern behavior. This is accomplished through rigorous, systematic experimentation, often conducted in controlled laboratory settings. EBA seeks to identify the universal laws of behavior, the “why” and “how” behind what we observe.

Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA)

ABA takes the experimentally derived principles from EBA and puts them to work in the real world. It is the bridge between the laboratory and the lives of individuals facing behavioral challenges. In their 1987 paper, Baer, Wolf, & Risley revisited the dimensions of ABA, emphasizing the crucial role of data collection, analysis, and experimental design in its practice. ABA therapists and practitioners carefully observe, measure, and analyze behavior to develop effective interventions and track progress, ensuring that their strategies are rooted in evidence and tailored to the individual’s needs.  

Professional Practice Guided by the Science of Behavior Analysis

This branch encompasses the wide range of professional activities conducted by behavior analysts, including consultation, training, supervision, and program development. These professionals utilize their expertise in behavior analysis to design and implement interventions in various settings, such as schools, homes, and workplaces. Their work is guided by the scientific principles established through EBA and refined through ABA research, ensuring that their practices are evidence-based and effective.

In essence, these four branches work together to create a comprehensive approach to understanding and changing behavior. EBA generates the knowledge, ABA applies it, professional practice implements it in real-world settings, and behaviorism provides the philosophical framework that ties it all together. However, the question remains: Are all BCBAs® truly embodying these interconnected facets of behavior analysis in their practice? This is the heart of the debate we’ll explore further.

	Experimental Behavior Analysis (EBA)	Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA)
Purpose	Discovers fundamental principles of behavior through experimentation	Applies behavioral principles to solve socially significant problems
Setting	Controlled laboratory settings	Real-world environments (homes, schools, clinics, workplaces)
Focus	Understanding the basic mechanisms of behavior	Changing socially significant behavior to improve the lives of individuals and communities
Examples	Research on elements of behavior such as reinforcement schedules, stimulus control, etc.	Interventions for behavior reduction, skill acquisition, etc.

The table above provides an overview of the key distinctions between EBA and ABA, highlighting their unique contributions to the field of behavior analysis.

The Evolution of ABA: From the Lab to the Living Room

ABA’s journey has been one of continuous evolution, expanding its scope and impact far beyond Skinner’s initial laboratory experiments. In its early days, ABA primarily focused on addressing severe behavioral challenges in controlled settings. However, the field has since blossomed into a multifaceted discipline that touches countless lives across various domains.

This evolution has led to a profound shift in how Skinner’s work is applied in natural settings. The rigid, highly structured interventions of the past have given way to more flexible, individualized approaches that consider the unique needs and contexts of each individual. ABA professionals now work in homes, schools, and communities, collaborating with families and caregivers to create supportive environments that foster positive behavior change.

The integration of new techniques and perspectives, such as functional communication training and pivotal response training, has enriched the ABA toolkit. These approaches, while building upon Skinner’s principles, emphasize natural language development, social interaction, and self-initiation. They strive to empower individuals to learn and thrive in their everyday environments, rather than simply modifying specific behaviors in isolation.

This evolution has also led to a greater emphasis on collaboration and person-centered care. ABA practitioners now recognize the importance of involving individuals and their families in the decision-making process, ensuring that interventions are aligned with their values and goals. This shift reflects a deeper understanding of the complex interplay between behavior, environment, and individual preferences.

While some may argue that this evolution represents a departure from Skinner’s original vision, it is perhaps more accurate to view it as a natural progression. The field of ABA has matured and adapted to the complexities of the real world, incorporating new insights and techniques while remaining grounded in the core principles of behavior analysis. This ongoing evolution ensures that ABA remains a vibrant and effective approach to understanding and changing behavior, capable of making a lasting difference in the lives of countless individuals.

Timeline of ABA’s Evolution

Although ABA is still considered a young science, its history goes back many decades.

• 1938: B.F. Skinner publishes “The Behavior of Organisms,” laying the foundation for behavior analysis
• 1950s-60s: Early pioneers like Ogden Lindsley, Montrose Wolf, and Don Baer conduct groundbreaking research in applied settings.
• 1968: Baer, Wolf, & Risley publish “Some Current Dimensions of Applied Behavior Analysis,” defining the field.
• 1970s: ABA gains traction in addressing developmental disabilities, particularly autism.
• 1978: The Behavior Analyst Certification Board (BACB) is established.
• 1990s: Verbal Behavior (VB) gains popularity as an approach to language instruction.
• 2000s: The rise of Positive Behavior Support (PBS) in schools and other settings.
• 2010s: Growing interest in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) and Relational Frame Theory (RFT) within the ABA community.
• Present: Ongoing debate about the future direction of ABA and the role of BCBAs®.

Key takeaways from the timeline:

• ABA has a rich history rooted in scientific research.
• The field has evolved significantly over time, expanding its applications and incorporating new approaches.
• The current debate reflects the dynamic nature of ABA and the ongoing quest to refine its practice and ensure its effectiveness.

Below is a brief visual timeline of the evolution of ABA. When thinking about the changes in the field that have occurred over the years, carefully consider how society has influenced that change. Now, there is a different perspective on human and disability rights than there was at ABA’s inception. If ABA does not evolve with the values of society, we lose one of the core aspects of ABA, social significance.

Schlinger’s Argument: BCBAs® Are Not Analyzing Behavior

At the core of Schlinger’s critique lies the contention that many BCBAs® are not engaging in the rigorous analysis that defines the field. He points to several trends within ABA that he believes have strayed from Skinner’s pragmatic approach, a cornerstone of behavior analysis that emphasizes experimentation, within-subject designs, and a focus on discovering order in behavior.

Schlinger highlights areas like delay discounting, Relational Frame Theory (RFT), Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), and Positive Behavior Support (PBS) as examples of this departure. He argues that much of the research in these areas relies on group designs and correlational data, rather than the single-subject experimental designs that allow for a more precise analysis of behavior change. Furthermore, he suggests that the emphasis has shifted towards demonstrating the effectiveness of interventions, rather than delving into the underlying mechanisms of behavior.

Schlinger also expresses concern about the BCBA® certification process itself. He argues that the current system, while well-intentioned, may be contributing to the dilution of the field by producing practitioners who lack a deep understanding of behavior analysis principles and experimental methods. This, in turn, could lead to misapplications of ABA and damage the field’s reputation.

In essence, Schlinger’s argument raises a fundamental question: Are BCBAs®, as a whole, truly engaging in the systematic analysis of behavior that is at the heart of ABA, or have they become mere technicians applying pre-packaged interventions without a deep understanding of the underlying science? This is a challenging question that warrants careful consideration and open dialogue within the ABA community.

Counterarguments: BCBAs® Do Analyze Behavior

While Schlinger’s concerns are valid and warrant attention, it’s important to recognize that many BCBAs® actively engage in behavior analysis as part of their daily practice. Data collection and analysis remain core components of ABA interventions, and some practitioners regularly utilize single-subject designs and visual analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of their strategies. This approach allows for a personalized and data-driven approach to treatment, ensuring that interventions are tailored to the individual’s unique needs and responsive to their progress.

Moreover, it’s essential to acknowledge the evolution of ABA as a field. Since its inception, ABA has expanded its reach and applications, venturing into new areas and addressing a broader range of behavioral challenges. This expansion has naturally led to the development of new approaches and techniques that, while not always perfectly aligned with Skinner’s original framework, still rely on the fundamental principles of behavior analysis. This evolution is a testament to the field’s adaptability and its ability to remain relevant in an ever-changing world.

Context is also critically important when considering how to label the practice of a professional. Schlinger’s critique, while rooted in the experimental foundations of behavior analysis, may not fully account for the complexities and practical constraints of real-world settings. BCBAs® often work in environments where conducting rigorous experimental analyses may not always be feasible or ethical. In these situations, they must rely on their clinical judgment, experience, and the available evidence to make informed decisions that benefit their clients.

The emergence of new approaches and techniques within ABA, such as RFT and ACT, reflects the field’s ongoing growth and its willingness to incorporate insights from other disciplines. While these approaches may not adhere strictly to Skinner’s original model, they can offer valuable tools and perspectives for understanding and addressing complex behavioral challenges. The diversity of thought within the field can be a strength, fostering innovation and expanding the scope of ABA’s impact.

Finding a Middle Ground

While the debate over the true nature of ABA practice is polarized, it’s crucial to find a middle ground that acknowledges both the strengths and areas for improvement within the field. Schlinger’s concerns about the potential drift from foundational principles and the need for more rigorous experimentation are valid and deserve serious consideration. The field could undoubtedly benefit from a renewed emphasis on experimental design and analysis in both research and practice.

However, it’s equally important to recognize the complexities and practical constraints faced by BCBAs® in real-world settings. While adhering to the core tenets of behavior analysis is essential, practitioners must also be adaptable and responsive to the unique needs of their clients. The diversity of approaches and perspectives within the field can be a valuable asset, as long as they are grounded in evidence and ethical practice.

The future of ABA hinges on our ability to foster open dialogue, critical thinking, and collaboration. By acknowledging areas for growth and embracing a spirit of continuous improvement, we can ensure that ABA remains a dynamic and effective field, capable of addressing a wide range of behavioral challenges and making a positive impact on the lives of individuals and communities. The ongoing conversation sparked by Schlinger’s critique serves as a catalyst for this essential self-reflection and evolution within the field.

References

Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1(1), 91.

Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1987). Some still‐current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of applied behavior analysis, 20(4), 313-327.

Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (n.d). BACB certificant data. Retrieved from https://www.bacb.com/BACB-certificant-data.

Carpintero Capell, H., Del Barrio, V., & Mababu, R. (2014). Applied psychology. The case of the Baer, Wolf and Risley prescriptions for applied behavior analysis. Universitas psychologica, 13(SPE5), 1721-1728.

Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2019). Applied Behavior Analysis (3rd Edition). Hoboken, NJ: Pearson Education.

KAZDIN, A.E. (1973), METHODOLOGICAL AND ASSESSMENT CONSIDERATIONS IN APPLIED SETTINGS: REVIEWERS’ COMMENTS. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 6: 532-539. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1973.6-532