Essential Learning Conversation: Rights in Everyday Practice
This fictional supervision exchange models how an RBT can raise a concern. Read it alongside the main lesson.
RBT: Sam asked to listen to music instead of practicing a daily living skill. A colleague suggested taking away the headphones until Sam completed the task. I was worried that we would be overriding Sam’s choice.
Supervisor: It was right to raise that concern. Effective teaching should improve Sam’s life and respect personal liberties. A scheduled activity does not remove the right to express a preference or ask for a break. What did Sam communicate, and what did you do?
RBT: Sam said, “Music now,” and moved the materials aside. I paused the demand, acknowledged the request and recorded what happened. I did not take the headphones away. I would like help finding a way to support the learning goal without pressuring Sam.
Supervisor: Let’s review the plan with Sam. We can consider meaningful choices about timing, materials and how the skill is taught. Keep following the agreed procedures and bring observations and ideas to supervision. You should not independently introduce a restrictive procedure or redesign the intervention.
RBT: If someone says consent and staff training make a restrictive procedure acceptable, is that enough?
Supervisor: No. Consent and training alone do not justify it. We must protect rights, consider appropriate alternatives and follow the applicable safeguards. Do not use harmful, degrading, painful or dehumanizing practices. If you see an unsafe or abusive practice, protect immediate safety and follow safeguarding and reporting procedures promptly. Do not wait for routine supervision.
Optional Readings
These historical articles provide additional context on effective treatment, personal liberties and restrictive practices. They are optional and are not instructions to use restrictive procedures.
- Vollmer, T. R., Hagopian, L. P., Bailey, J. S., Dorsey, M. F., Hanley, G. P., Lennox, D., … & Spreat, S. (2011). The Association for Behavior Analysis International position statement on restraint and seclusion. The Behavior Analyst, 34(1), 103-110.
- Van Houten, R., Axelrod, S., Bailey, J. S., Favell, J. E., Foxx, R. M., Iwata, B. A., & Lovaas, O. I. (1988). The right to effective behavioral treatment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21(4), 381-384.
- Bannerman, D. J., Sheldon, J. B., Sherman, J. A., & Harchik, A. E. (1990). Balancing the right to habilitation with the right to personal liberties: the rights of people with developmental disabilities to eat too many doughnuts and take a nap. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23(1), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1990.23-79
Optional Videos
Student debate, 23:31, starting at 4:29. This optional video features ABA students holding a group debate that examines the potential conflicts between habilitation and personal liberties. Arguments are presented for debate and are not practice instructions. They may not reflect the participants’ personal opinions.
Conversation Exercise
In the bottom right-hand corner of your screen, you’ll see a conversation icon. Click on this to begin the conversation exercise with FRED, our AI-powered chatbot. Alternatively, click this link to open the chat interface directly.
If you have not already, read this article to learn how to get the most from your learning conversation with FRED.
Reflection Exercise
Use the main lesson and essential learning conversation to complete the reflection below.
You need to be registered and logged in to take this quiz. Log in or Register