Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Ethics’

We are thrilled to be participating in the Behavior Analysis in Education Series (BAES) through ACES! Here is a link to the entire series. Or if you want to read more about the topics, click here. If you like what you see, click here to register.idea-logo

Dr. Olive will be presenting on Special Education Law and Ethical Issues for Behavior Analysts working in the schools.

We will be attending all of these and we hope to see you at them too! If you attend, be sure to say hello!

 

Want to read more on this topic? Try one of these blogs:

(more…)

Read Full Post »

We have a webinar on Thursday, Ethics in Social Media. This 4-hour training course meets the ethics requirements described by the BACB. We have a few seats remaining so if you need to fulfill your ethics requirement or if you are in need of a few more credit hours before you renew, visit our website to register.social media data

Read Full Post »

Documents

BACB Guideline 3.02 Explaining Assessment Results

Recently, a client planned to attend an upcoming IEP meeting for their child who received school services in a private school and Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) Therapy from a private provider. The client did not want the ABA provider to attend the IEP meeting. Instead, they asked the ABA provider to submit a report that would be reviewed in the meeting.

The ABA provider informed the client that he was unable to submit a report for a meeting that he could not intend. He cited the BACB Guidelines for Responsible Conduct. The client became very upset and even said “Other BCBAs have done this, why can’t you?”

As a BCBA, we must follow the Guidelines established by the Behavior Analysis Certification Board (BACB). As Augustine of Hippo states, “Right is right, even if no one is doing it.”

The BACB Guideline 3.02 specifies what is expected of BCBAs with regards to their assessments. Specifically:

3.03 Explaining Assessment Results.

Unless the nature of the relationship is clearly explained to the person being assessed in advance and precludes provision of an explanation of results (such as in some organizational consultation, some screenings, and forensic evaluations), behavior analysts ensure that an explanation of the results is provided using language that is reasonably understandable to the person assessed or to another legally authorized person on behalf of the client. Regardless of whether the interpretation is done by the behavior analyst, by assistants, or others, behavior analysts take reasonable steps to ensure that appropriate explanations of results are given.

If a BCBA cannot attend a meeting where his report is reviewed, how can he ensure that the report is interpreted appropriately as the Guidelines state? The BCBA has several options:

  1. Have another appropriately trained BCBA go in his place
  2. Have an appropriately trained BCaBA attend his place
  3. Offer to call in to explain the results
  4. Meet separately from the meeting to review the results

Practicing BCBAs have many job responsibilities and obligations. We are often faced with difficult decisions as a result of those responsibilities. It is imperative that we know our Guidelines for Responsible Conduct and that we follow them to the best of our ability.

Read Full Post »

graphHi and welcome to Ask Missy Mondays where I respond to a question from readers. Today’s question was posted on a list serve for parents and family members of individuals with autism. The mom wrote,

“As far as data collection, I hear about the BCBA doing it but I have never seen it nor heard specific results. I requested the data and the BCBA told me that as an outside consultant she is not allowed to provide it.

Having taught a course on Ethics and Professional Issues for behavior analysts, and in addition to offering on-going coursework related to ethical issues for Board Certified Behavior Analysts, hearing things like this really upsets me.

Guideline 2.0 Responsibility to Client

The Behavior Analyst Certifying Board (BACB) has developed a set of Guidelines that BCBAs and BCaBAs must follow. These guidelines are called the Guidelines for Responsible Conduct and they may be viewed here. One of the guidelines states that “the behavior analyst has the responsibility to operate in the best interest of the client“. When the client is a minor or incapacitated (i.e., unable to make decisions for him/her self), the client’s parents or guardians become the client.

In the case above, the BCBA is claiming that her responsibility lies with the school district who is paying her salary. Unfortunately, the school district is a third-party payer. While the BCBA has responsibilities to her employer, those responsibilities cannot override her primary responsibility to the client. In fact, the guidelines address this issues.

Guideline 2.05 Third Party Requests for Services

This guideline has two parts. First the guideline states that “When a behavior analyst agrees to provide services to a person or entity at the request of a third-party, the behavior analyst clarifies to the extent feasible, at the outset of the service, the nature of the relationship with each party. This clarification includes the role of the behavior analyst (such as therapist, organizational consultant, or expert witness), the probable uses of the services provided or the information obtained, and the fact that there may be limits to confidentiality.

The guidelines go on to state that “If there is a foreseeable risk of the behavior analyst being called upon to perform conflicting roles because of the involvement of a third party, the behavior analyst clarifies the nature and direction of his or her responsibilities, keeps all parties appropriately informed as matters develop, and resolves the situation in accordance with these Guidelines.

So, while the district is paying for the services, the client is the child and his/her guardian. When he client requests their data, the behavior analyst must make those data available.

Read Full Post »

One of the things that behavior analysts in training are trying to learn is how to keep personal life separate from professional life. This means that being Facebook friends with families whom we serve is not a good idea. Keep in mind that many employers will “Google” you if you are applying for jobs. Make sure that social media doesn’t come back to haunt you. Thanks to The Joy of Tech and Nitrozac & Snaggy for this awesome cartoon!

Read Full Post »

We know that ethics is not a laughing matter. However, today is Friday and we are always up for a little Friday humor! Thank you Clay Bennett for your brilliant work!

Read Full Post »

Here at Applied Behavioral Strategies, our mission is to improve the quality of life through effective intervention. One way we hope to do that is by reviewing research articles for our readers. Today’s article is titled, “Replicating Milgrim”. The author, Jerry Burger, published the study in the journal, American Psychologist.

Study Purpose

The purpose of Dr. Burger’s study was to replicate the work of Milgram whose study series is known to many. (In case you are thinking–“who the H-E-Double Hockey Sticks” is Milgram, think back to the study where the supervisor told the participants to shock the “client” and the study participants did! Repeatedly!!). Psychologists now refer to those studies as the Obedience Studies.

Burger wondered, if after all these years of education, training, human compassion, and so forth, if, in fact, people today would engage in the same behavior. Burger took several steps to ensure the safety of participants in the study (yes, the ones who would be giving shock to the “learner”)

Study Methods

Participants included 29 men and 41 women with a mean age of 42 years. Participants were promised $50 for their time (two 45-minute sessions). Participants learned that they earned the money even if they withdrew from the study. Participants who were familiar with the experiment or who had extensive psychology training were excluded from the study. Experimenters then screened the remaining participants for any possible mental health condition or a reasons that may have resulted in a negative or harmful reaction from participating in the study. Researchers told participants they could quit at any time and that they could be videotaped at any time. Researchers assigned participants to one of two conditions.

The base condition consisted of the participant meeting the experimenter and the confederate (inside experimenter with knowledge of the study). The experimenter explained to the participant and the confederate that they would be in a study. He then paid both of them to give the impression that the study was randomized. Then he had them “draw” to determine who would be the teacher and who would be the learner. The “drawing” was rigged so that the participant always served as the teacher.

 

The experimenter then strapped the confederate in to the chair and attached the electrodes all the while explaining to the participant why he completed his step (e.g., to keep from burning him). Next, the experimenter told the confederate to learn the pairs of words. The experimenter told the confederate that the participant would be testing him and if he missed any answers, he would be administered a shock.

Next the experimenter taught the participant how to administer a shock. He provided a small one to the participant if he/she wanted one. The experimenter told the participant to administer a shock following each incorrect answer. He also instructed the participant to increase the intensity of the shock following each incorrect answer. Finally, the experimenter told the participant the importance of following study procedures .

The modeled refusal condition consisted of the participant meeting the experiment and 2 confederates. One confederate served as a teacher alongside the participant and the other confederate served as the learner. In this condition, the participant observed another “teacher” following the protocol. In this condition, the “teacher” (who happened to be the same gender as the participant) acted scared of the study after the first shock and then after the second shock decided that he/she would quit. The experimenter then allowed the participant to take over and continue as in the base condition.

In both conditions, the researchers enforced strict rules for ending the experiment and keeping the participant safe.

Results

In the base condition 12 out of 18 men and 16 out of 22 women (70% total) continued to administer shock treatments, despite the cries and yelps from the confederate. Meanwhile in the modeled refusal condition, 6 out of 11 men and 13 out of 19 women continued to administer shock treatments.

The researchers completed several personality assessments on the participants and used those results in additional analyses. Statistical analysis did not find any difference between scores on empathy. However statistical analysis revealed differences among participants with a strong desire for control in that they were more likely to stop the study.

Sadly, participants today responded very similarly to those participants in the 1960s.

Take Home Points

As behavior analysts, behavior analysts in training, teachers, and parents, use caution when you are instructed to implement a procedure that you may disagree with. As demonstrated in this study, humans are more likely to follow orders rather than stand up and refuse or question the treatment. When our children are being shocked (as those in Judge Rotenberg Center), restrained, and secluded, perhaps we should seek a 2nd opinion. Isn’t that what we do in medicine when we question a recommendation?

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: