Response Allocation of Board-Certified Behavior Analysts toward Categories of Evidence-Based Practice

Abstract

Board certified behavior analysts (BCBAs) are often called upon to recommend treatments while working with autistic individuals. As practitioners of the science of human behavior, behavior analysts must make recommendations supported by scientific evidence. However, at times, individual practitioners may inadvertently recommend interventions that are not evidence-based. This study sought to examine if the severity level of the present symptoms of autism impacted the recommendations made by behavior analysts. A survey of 122 BCBAs gathered information about how they allocated resources toward interventions across three categories: evidence-based, emergent, and nonevidence-based. The results indicate that up to 62% of BCBAs allocated resources toward nonevidence-based or emergent practices and that these resource allocations were affected by the autism severity of hypothetical client presentations. There were statistically significant differences between allocations to resources between individuals with the lowest symptom severity and those maximally affected for both evidence-based practice (p < 0.0009) and nonevidence practice (p < 0.0011).