This is an issue in other countries as well. In Ontario, Canada, the College of Psychologists requires listing of professional competencies. ABA is not on the list, but perhaps could be added under "other." Our provincial psychological association is following the same route as APA. Perhaps, then the College of Psychologists in Ontario will add ABA as a professional competency. Unfortunately, with the rise in ABA services (particularly in ASD) and the requirement for psychologist supervision of many publically funded ABA programs, there may have been some psychologists claiming expertise in ABA, without having any. Licensing bodies will need to address this situation for consumer protection (which is the primary function of licensing bodies).

Seriously? There are no respondents for this question?

Many state psychology boards are trying to grapple with this question. The APA is taking it seriously and does assert that ABA and behavioral psychology broadly are psychological specialties.

Currently the requirements in US (as I understand them to be) is that the only organization that offers "board certification" is the BACB which consists of completing an approved certificate program (15 graduate level college credits with specific requirement of training in Ethics) as well as 1500 hours of a supervised practicum under the supervision of a BCBA as well as a master's degree in a related field such as special education or psychology or speech pathology - probably because the majority of BCBAs work with client in the field of autism. I currently in a master's program studying behavior analysis, yet prior to that completed the requisite certificate program at an approved university as well a both an independent and university-sponsored practicum that totalled 1000 and then sat for and passed the BCaBA exam. That being said, as a BCaBA, there are really no job opportunities unless you are BCBA - which means I can still only qualify for direct service employment. However since I spent the last year studying BA full time (I completed 18 graduate leve credits so far - prior to this what I learned was just the tip of iceberg - this full immersion in learning about the experimental, the theoritical, the applied, verbal behavior (in depth), conducting my own research, writing proposals for IRB approval, as well as learning about behavioral economics and translational research - it is now (not previously when I passed the BCaBA exam) do I feel like I can legitimately feel like I have a deep enough understanding of the science of behavior (and I have yet to complete two more long-term research projects, publish in a journal, and present for my thesis - to finally call myself a behavior analyst. Sitting for the exam is something I could probably do today and pass with the knowledge I have amassed - however if we want those outside BA to take our science seriously, we need to treat it seriously and not assume that "becoming" a behavior analyst is some kind of "add-on" to an previous certification. Like becoming an architect or engineer or a doctor or lawyer - we need to treat our profession as one that merits a great depth of education. It does our clients - who we in the applied world work for- a great dis-service. Especially families with children on the ASD, who fall prey to the non-empirically validated practices, they desparately need our efficient science! As far as the rest of the world, the science of BA has the ability to help erradicate so many social problems - obesity, addiction, education (even mainstream), finances, the list is endless - but we as a science have been marginized by those who do not understand our science. I recommend to all my friends outside BA to read Susan Schneider's book The Science of Consequences - it eloquantly summarizes the science in language that a lay audience can comprehend without insulting their intelligence nor doing dis-service to our particular BA language.

Bill Heward is heavily involved with ABAI and is a leading figure in Behaviour Analysis, he is also located at OSU and may be able to provide an insight here. There is a direct ethical issue here in that supervision should only be given by someone considered to have have met a sufficient standard which the BACB outlines. Unfortunately this is a similar issue in the UK with moves afoot to have the BCBA accreditation listed with the health professions council (HPC). A body clinical psychology also registers with in order to practice. The boards need to update quickly if they are to avoid a box ticking exercise. Behaviour analysts need to be recognised as a broader speciality within behavioural psychology for things to progress! There is no quick answer to this question.

I know Bill. I don't think he would be all that helpful, although i helped a number of his doctoral students get psychology credits so that they could be licensed as psychologists in Ohio. The non-psychologist behavior analysts have sometimes seemed to be attempting to exclude psychologists from including behavior analysis within their scope of practice. This, of course, is not going to happen, but in the meantime members of the public are getting mixed messages. There are not nearly enough professionals who know how to do this kind of work and behavior analysts should be willing to work collaboratively with psychologists who are willing and qualified o do it.

One other point is that the American Board of Professional Psychology does have a behavioral specialty for licensed doctoral level psychologists who pass an examination and have had at least 5 years of independent practice. This Diplomate recognition predates the BACB by a number of years, perhaps by more than a decade.

I think collaborative work is key if service users are to get the correct level of support whilst tackling specific issues. As someone finishing my doctorate in ABA and having a primary degree in psychology i recognise the value of having multiple specialities involved in the assessment, formulation, intervention and follow up of a particular case. In fact multidisciplinary approaches are considered to be the gold standard here. I do have some sympathy with your perspective and acknowledge that sometimes behaviour analysis has been at risk of marginalising itself as a field, which is the wrong way to go! On a positive note most people i know coming through right now are more than willing to be inclusive of other perspectives, where there exists value at an applied level and mutual respect, as the focus is and should be on doing what works for the service user as opposed to retreating to purest corners. Im pretty sure this doesn't answer your original question but may provide a friendly perspective from a behavioural cousin :-)

Skinner was my great grand mentor (my doctoral advisor's advisor's colleague and mentor), and he was a psychologist who used almost his last breath to speak to the APA convention. I was there. Behavior analysis has always been an important thread in psychology, but represents only one approach to asking questions of and controlling nature. Behavior Analysis seems to have always - and still does - marginalize itself by asserting it has a unique (only) way to find the truth and disparaging other methodologies that may be much better suited to answering certain kinds of important questions. We know that inductive methods can show real functional relations in individuals, but what if we want to establish population level safety guidelines?

I'm no expert with only a B.A in Psychology, but I work in the ABA field as a technician and we are highly encouraged to pursue our BCBA alongside with the ABA masters degree. The thing is, it seems only valid in the USA, and if I choose to move outta the country with that,my time and money would not be well spent as it wouldnt be recognized. I also believe that this article, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2854065/ , speaks about how this field is growing in recognition, but it still takes time to be fully established.

And James, you are right about other methodologies being better suited for certain questions & represent only 1 approach, but the people in this field dont seem to believe it. Most that I've seen, think that ABA is the one and only way. Hopefully, licensure for ABA will internationally recognized soon, and collaboration with other Psych-related fields would be promoted too.

Well, the science behind ABA is fundamentally true, which cannot be said about other areas of psychology. This being said, there is considerably more in science than in ABA, and much of it is relevant to the science of behavior and is covered in psychology doctoral programs but not in some ABA masters and doctoral programs of which I am aware. I still think the best way to obtain a good program emphasizing ABA is to search out a high quality doctoral program in psychology in which ABA is prominent. There are quite a few of these in the world. Any graduate program is a function of what the faculty offers, and faculty tend, over the long haul, to address the demands of the market (i.e., what the best students want to study).

I agree that the science between ABA has been well supported by research, especially if one looks at developing very specific behaviors in very specific circumstances. I also agree that the many other "special education" techniques have weak or absent support. A good source for comparing effect sizes of various special ed interventions is Kenneth A. Kavale and Lucinda S. Spaulding. "The Efficacy of Special Education" The Oxford Handbook of School Psychology. Ed. M. A. Bray & T. J. Kehle. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. The AAMR monograph is a bit older but even more helpful comparing effect sizes. Having said that since the early years of large scale special ed in the 1960s, there have been many studies that have compared special education placements with regular class placements and these have overwhelming shown that special placements have produced worse results than inclusive placements. This appears to be a contradiction but it is not and speaks to the importance not only of ABA interventions and ABA compatible interventions but teaching in natural environments. It is important in considering scientific evidence to look both at the microlevel of individual behaviour change but also to the macrolevel of overall outcomes.

I do not think that the factors you cite represents evidence that teaching in “natural” environments is somehow superior to teaching in something called special education environments. The overriding fact is that acquisition, and the rate of acquisition especially, is the important metric. Once acquisition of a repertoire is assured, it is a matter of technology only to assure that generalization and functional application of behavior already acquired occurs. If a so-called natural environment slows acquisition as a result of countervailing contingencies, then the long term outcome for children—children who are children for a limited time—may be unsatisfactory. Natural environments are hard to define, and the distinction between a natural and a special education environment is impossible to define. The devil is in the details, and detail is pretty much ill defined in the debate between proponents of classroom placement. One thing is certain, however, and that is that educators are prototypic short term planners who do not visualize how students will achieve satisfactory outcomes as a result of the entire developmental period.

I agree with Dr. Mulick that natural environments are difficult to distinguish from "artificial" ones. The term (naturalistic) often implies general education or community settings. Routines and activities may be better designed and conducive to learning when used in specialized (i.e., separate, non-inclusive") settings. I tend to think of ways to embed behavior analytic instruction that best supports student learning and how the skills will impact long-tern outcomes. I often encounter irrational justifications for teaching irrelevant skills (e.g., prerequisite for a more advanced skill; skill that is perceived to be valuable but has little immediate or longterm impact for the person).

I realize this thread is drifting from the original issue, but I've become increasingly aware of what could pejoratively be described as inclusion fundamentalism. Presumed competence, for example, is as a defense for arbitrary inclusion and seems to rely heavily on appeals to emotion rather than compelling data. Your thoughts on these concerns, Drs. Mulick and Sobsey (and others), are greatly appreciated.

It is exciting to follow this discussion, as I have been reading and following your research (Drs. Mulik and Sobsey) for many years. I am but a lowly parent of a son with significant autism and intellectual disability who has lived in the US and Canada and have interacted with both "special/separate/segregated" and "natural/inclusive" environments, educationally speaking. Both have been successful and unsuccessful, depending entirely on the skills and mindset of the staff/administration in the front of the classroom. ABA techniques took my son from not being functional in the world, to being much more functional. But there is no parallel "special/separate/segregated" world for children to "graduate" into, as we are seeing (thankfully) the end of sheltered workshops and "big box" residences (institutions). I tend toward "inclusion fundamentalism" for this reason, but try to model and encourage ABA techniques with everyone who works with my son. Perhaps I'm an ABA fundamentalist, as well?

I appreciate every single person who shares my interest in supporting individuals who are challenged by our world and society, and wish I could have found a way to contribute to the field as you all do. Thank you on behalf of all these individuals and their families, who may not be aware of your life-changing work.

Jason, the natural environment ended with the domestication of animals and plants, the growth of cities and money economies, and industrialization. None of us would wish to live in the natural environment. The natural life would be short if we had to endure it. That said, How about the original question? Any thoughts?

Jim, your point above about BCBAs strategically obstructing legitimate and adequately skilled psychologists from practicing or supervising behavior analytic interventions is concerning and, I think, detrimental to consumers, professionals, and ABA. Quibbling over who can and cannot practice/supervise likely is responsible for some of the confusion consumers experience when seeking consultation for services like early intensive behavior intervention, for example. The resentment, I think, is rooted in psychology's (alleged) abandonment of behaviorism and a science of behavior for cognitive psychology. Skinner's comparison between cognitivism and creationism perhaps best represents the schism.

Ultimately, I think these fields need to resolve these problems rather than leaving it up to consumers. A capitalist approach in which psychology and behavior analysis compete for superior status seems a bad idea. We see this playing out all over the country with competing legislative action (i.e., certification v. licensure) primarily resultant of autism insurance reform efforts. In Massachusetts, a bill was introduced that for state licensing requirements that would have excluded a large number of existing certificants from license eligibility (degree type was one criteria, for example).

Consumers look to their government for guidance on issues like this, but the process has been slow and fraught with infighting, even among ABAI executive board members and the BACB. I guess this a long way of saying I'm not sure what consumers ought to do to determine the qualifications of a psychologist with extensive training in behavior analysis and a novice behavior analyst who completed five courses in ABA. Perhaps reviewing their credentials, asking for references, and comparing/contrasting with other potential service providers.

That is about what I decided for actions that consumers must use. As to competition for market share, that is a reality and not a matter of abstract interest. Most of the state-level efforts by behavior analysts started as a direct challenge to the work of psychologists who could also do the work. Legislators depend on professional groups to guide them in writing laws, and they are stuck with listening to the voices that get their attention. ABA practitioners took the approach that they were something new under the sun in most states, pointing out what they could do and not carefully considering how this would affect the practice of psychology. This approach led to a need for advocates of an independent ABA profession to enter into a bit of palaver with organized psychologists at the state and national levels, which I believe has been resolved in something resembling mutual respect (at least in public). People do want to make a living, and competition is inevitable when two "professions" offer what appears to be the same service. ABA has yet to find its way in defining itself as a distinct profession, although there appears to be a great deal of momentum and much consumer support for for it to stand alone. Psychologists are pretty clear that they have always seen the activities that ABAs perform as an integral part of the scope of practice of professional psychology.

Seems we share similar opinions. A related problem is the self-generated problem of characterizing ABA as an autism treatment. Many folks seem unaware of its usefulness for improving various aspects of the human condition and, perhaps consequently, are skeptical of its utility. Essentially, the perception appears to be "BCBAs are for learners with autism. Psychologists are for everyone else."

On a different note, I submitted a short paper yesterday about how facilitated communication proponents are using marketing techniques, pseudoscience, and fallacy to promote FC. FC appears to be making a comeback. "The Reason I Jump" was on sale in the book area at ABAI this weekend. Other examples are rampant. I wasn't sure if you still followed that nonsense.

Interesting discussion! As someone who is BCBA-D and lives and works in Australia, I would like to make a number of observations:

In Australia there is currently no Board approved sequence of study leading to the BCBA and therefore a big shortage of behaviour analysts. Most ABA programs that I am aware of are supervised by psychologists who may or may not have formal training in ABA (few psychology training programs here contain ANY ABA!). Parents here are very much confronted by the question of how they can tell a psychologist who will be able to supervise a good ABA program. In striving for evidence-based practice it is important that not only practices supported by evidence are used, but also that they are implemented by competent individuals. Our research has shown that even highly manualised programs are at times implemented with errors likely to compromise outcomes. I suggest to parents they look at the kind of data practitioners keep. To me that is one of the most important hallmarks of a good program: accountability.

With regards to the special education discussion. In my experience special schools (at least here in Australia) often have low expectations and deliver little instruction. Many children with ASD are under-stimulated in such environments. So, I think the answer to that question is not a categorical one - again I would urge parents to consider the quality of instruction.