Competence in ABA
ABA professionals only practice in areas where they are competent
We concluded our previous lesson by noting that the principles of behaviour are universal. However, it is important to understand that just because the principles of ABA can be applied to any area, does not mean that every ABA professional or paraprofessional has the skills and experience required to work in any area.
All ABA professionals, including behaviour technicians, are bound by their ethical codes to only operate in areas where they are competent. Whether or not they are competent to practice in an area will depend on factors such as their prior training and experience as well as the availability of supervision from competent professionals. While some behaviour analysts may be competent to apply the principles in areas such as counselling or in medicine without supervision, most are not.
When we look at examples of ABA such as MammaCare or Food Dudes, these are examples of ABA where behaviour analysts worked in collaboration with other experts and professionals (doctors and nutritionists) to identify what should be taught. They then used their knowledge of the principles of behaviour to develop effective ways of teaching these skills. As you have seen, such collaborations can be extremely successful.
ABA Procedures that require the active participation of a behaviour analyst
In our previous lesson, we noted the powerful, positive impact of applications of behaviour analysis such as such as Functional Behaviour Assessments and models of comprehensive ABA for developmental disabilities.
However, it is important to note that the research demonstrating the effectiveness of these applications relates to examples of FBA and CABA where the interventions were overseen by qualified behaviour analysts. Attempts to use such applications without sufficient supervision from professionally trained behaviour analysts are unlikely to lead to improvements in quality of life.
To illustrate this point, it is interesting to look at the use of Functional Behaviour Assessment in schools. In 1997, the federal US government introduced amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). These amendments obliged school personnel to conduct functional behaviour assessments where students with disabilities engage in challenging behaviour and develop support plans based on the findings of the FBA.
Unfortunately, schools were not prepared for this new requirement. Staff were not trained in behaviour analysis and the requirement was introduced as an addition to existing obligations meaning that there were logistical issues with its implementation. In Wisconsin, authorities engaged in an intensive 3-year effort to provide in-service training in the use of FBA and BSPs. Following this initiative, a team of researchers led by Richard Van Acker of the University of Chicago investigated the technical adequacy of these FBAs and behaviour support plans.
They found that the majority of FBAs conducted were seriously flawed. Behaviours that challenge were not identified or defined vaguely. Attempts to identify the reasons why behaviours occurred were hampered by a failure of school staff to conceptualise their targets in behavioural terms. Often, the function of the behaviour was not used to develop the strategies in behaviour support plans and a large number of support plans relied solely on the use of aversive strategies to punish children. As you?ll understand from your earlier lessons, such interventions lack social validity.
The research team?s findings are a stark reminder that some behaviour analytic procedures require extensive technical and ethical training to implement correctly. On the whole, research findings into the use of FBA by teams that do not include supervision from a well-trained behaviour analyst are mixed. There has been promising recent advances in training school and other staff to use FBA methods, however, until there is evidence to confirm these methods, a client?s right to an effective FBA and BSP can only be assured with the participation of a professional with extensive training in behaviour analysis.
Intervention Packages Versus Support from a Professional Behaviour Analyst
It is important to distinguish between the following categories of ABA interventions:
1. An ABA intervention package for general use (e.g. the Headsprout progamme can be used by parents)
2. An ABA intervention package designed to be used by a particular group of professionals (Acceptance and Commitment Therapy is a behaviour analytic talk therapy package that, after training, can be used by counselling psychologists who do not have extensive knowledge of ABA)
3. A procedure (or set of procedures) that are used to generate individualised solutions for a client that require the support or direction of a highly trained behaviour analyst (Comprehensive ABA intervention designed to improve quality of life outcomes for people with developmental and intellectual disabilities).
Conclusion
The take home point of this lesson is that just because a person is that competence with regard to ABA interventions depends on many factors.
Not every behaviour analyst is competent in every area that ABA can be used. Sometimes, they may need collaborate with other professionals or seek supervision from a competent person.
Some behaviour analytic interventions are designed to be used by anybody. Others are designed for particular professional groups. Other types of intervention require extensive training in behaviour analysis and should only be implemented with substantial support from a professional with extensive training in behaviour analysis.