Search

Behavior analysts collaborating within interdisciplinary teams are likely to find themselves at difficult crossroads. Some of these crossroads include implementing alternative treatments, defining and determining risk and harm, and evaluating research and interventions. The purpose of this paper is to highlight some of these crossroads and provide guidelines on successfully navigating them. We contend that it is possible to navigate these crossroads while minimizing harm or risk for the client, adhering to the principles of science and behavior analysis, and remaining respectful of all members of the interdisciplinary team. That is, we can maintain the scientific tenets of philosophic doubt, empiricism, and experimentation, while remaining humble, and ensuring our clients access the most effective interventions available.

Leaf and colleagues (2016) provided a definition and description of progressive applied behavior analysis (ABA) in the context of autism treatment in which a behavior analyst takes a structured, yet flexible, approach to treatment that is responsive to the learner and includes on-going, in-the-moment analysis of teaching. Since Leaf and colleagues' publication, there have been many research and dissemination advancements across the domains outlined in the original paper. This includes advancements in the types of progressive procedures implemented, instructional arrangements, progressive reinforcement strategies, preventive functional analysis, progressive discrete trial teaching, data collection, progressive curriculum development, and staff training. The purpose of this paper is to highlight these advances citing peer-reviewed research where possible. Although many advancements have occurred, there is still a great need in the field of ABA for more clinicians and researchers to evaluate and implement procedures associated with the progressive approach to ABA. The paper will conclude with a call to action for behavior analysts to move away from rigid, protocolized, and conventional ABA practices and move towards implementing progressive ABA.

The current study compared a simultaneous prompting strategy to a most-to-least prompting strategy for three children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. The prompting procedures were used to teach expressive label targets via direct telehealth. Results of the adapted alternating treatments design nestled within a multiple-baseline design demonstrated that both prompting procedures were effective to teach the expressive label targets directly via telehealth. The efficiency of the prompting procedures was evaluated in addition to the effectiveness of the procedures. Results are discussed in terms of clinical implications of the prompting methods used via telehealth and future research directions.

To ensure the quality of training, skills developed and maintained, and expected standards for behavior analysts, several systems have been put into place across the years. Of these systems, perhaps the most widespread was the development of the Behavior Analyst Certification Board in 1998. Once all requirements are met, the final determinative step in obtaining certification is a multiple-choice examination. The use of a multiple-choice examination as the final determinative step in obtaining behavior analytic certification may create some concerns for behavior analysts. Identification of a positive correlation between the multiple-choice examination and performance may help ameliorate these concerns. The purpose of this study was to evaluate any potential correlations between scores on a popular commercially available prep examination and basic applied behavior analysis (ABA)--based autism intervention procedures with 25 professionals. Overall, the results indicated that multiple-choice examination scores were not significantly correlated with any assessments of performance.

This study compared the effects of a conventional approach and a progressive approach to discrete trial teaching when teaching tact relations to 12 children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The conventional approach was informed by best practice guidelines for teaching receptive and expressive language (Green "Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities," 16(2), 72-85, 2001; Grow & Leblanc "Behavior Analysis in Practice," 6(1), 56-75, 2013) and other relevant research (e.g., Graff & Karsten "Behavior Analysis in Practice," 5(2), 37-48, 2012; León & Rosales "Journal of Behavioral Education," 27(1), 81-100, 2018; Majdalany et al. "Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis," 47(3), 657-662, 2014). The progressive approach was informed by guidelines outlined by Leaf, Cihon, Leaf, et al. "International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education," 9(2), 361-372, (2016a) and Leaf, Leaf, McEachin, et al. "Journal of Autism & Developmental Disorders," 46(2), 720-731, (2016c). In this study, highly vocal-verbal participants diagnosed with ASD were randomly assigned to the conventional or progressive condition and received 20 sessions of intervention. Following intervention, statistical analysis was used to evaluate and compare the effects of each condition. Although both were effective in teaching the participants tact relations, there was a statistically significant difference in the number of tact relations learned in the progressive condition when compared to the conventional condition.

This study compared simultaneous prompting with an error correction procedure for teaching three children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder expressive labels. Using a parallel treatment design nested within a multiple probe design, the researchers taught each participant how to expressively label pictures of sports teams or cartoon characters using either simultaneous prompting or an error correction procedure. The goal was to evaluate the effectiveness, efficiency, and acquisition during teaching for each participant across the two conditions. Results indicated that both teaching procedures were effective, with high rates of maintenance, and all participants responded correctly during the majority of teaching trials.

There are three branches of science of behavior analysis [i.e., experimental analysis of behavior, behavior analysis, and applied behavior analysis (ABA)]. ABA can be defined as a systematic approach to understanding behavior of social interest. For the past 40 plus years, researchers have evaluated ABA and ABA based procedures (e.g., behavioral intervention) as they relate to individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and have implemented behavioral intervention in clinical settings for individuals diagnosed with ASD. In this paper, we discuss some of the pivotal contributions in the field of ABA in research and clinical practice. Additionally, we provide recommendations for the science and clinical practice of behavioral intervention in the next 40 years.