- Applied Behavior Analysis Ethics and Professional Conduct Questions and Answers Flashcards

A BCBA supervising an RBT discovers that the RBT has been implementing a preference assessment protocol correctly but has started modifying the reinforcement schedule without authorization because the client seems to respond better. The BCBA has documented this deviation. Under the BACB Ethics Code, what is the MOST appropriate immediate next step?

Answer: Address the deviation directly with the RBT, provide corrective feedback and retraining, and document the remediation plan

The Ethics Code requires supervisors to address performance deficiencies through direct feedback and documented remediation before escalating to more serious measures. Immediate termination or BACB reporting is disproportionate for a first-documented deviation that wasn't harmful. Retroactively formalizing an unauthorized change would undermine professional oversight. The supervisor must correct, retrain, and document — escalation occurs only if the behavior persists or causes harm.

A behavior analyst is approached by a former client's parent (the therapeutic relationship ended 14 months ago) who wants to hire the analyst as a private consultant for a business venture unrelated to ABA. The BACB Ethics Code's guidance on multiple relationships would MOST accurately classify this situation as:

Answer: Potentially problematic and requiring careful evaluation of whether the prior relationship could impair objectivity or exploit the former client

The BACB Ethics Code does not impose a blanket time-based prohibition on relationships with former clients, nor does it categorically permit them. Instead, practitioners must evaluate whether the prior relationship could compromise professional judgment, create an exploitative dynamic, or harm the individual. A 14-month gap does not automatically resolve these concerns — the nature of the prior relationship, the power differential, and potential for exploitation must all be assessed. The two-year rule applies specifically to romantic/sexual relationships.

During a team meeting, a BCBA learns that a speech-language pathologist colleague has been implementing an informal behavior reduction procedure with a shared client that lacks the formal functional behavior assessment and behavior intervention plan required by the client's treatment agreement. The BCBA has no supervisory authority over the SLP. What does the Ethics Code MOST require the BCBA to do?

Answer: Document the concern and raise it with the appropriate administrative or supervisory channels within the organization, and potentially with the client's guardian

When a behavior analyst becomes aware of a situation that may compromise client welfare, they are ethically obligated to take action even when they lack direct authority over the person involved. The appropriate route is to raise the concern through proper internal channels (supervisors, program directors) and, when client safety is at stake, to inform the client's guardian. Immediate external reporting is premature without first attempting internal resolution. Ignoring the issue violates the duty to protect client welfare. Unilaterally implementing competing procedures would exceed scope and potentially harm the client.

A behavior analyst working in a school district receives a request from a district administrator to share de-identified behavioral data from multiple students to help make a case for budget reallocation. The analyst believes the data aggregation could still allow re-identification of specific students given the small school size. Under BACB ethics, the analyst should PRIMARILY:

Answer: Evaluate whether de-identification is genuinely sufficient to protect confidentiality given the context, and decline or modify the request if re-identification risk remains

De-identification is not a categorical pass for disclosure — the Ethics Code requires behavior analysts to consider whether de-identification is actually effective in context. In a small school, small-cell data can allow re-identification even without explicit identifiers. The analyst must assess the realistic confidentiality risk and refuse or substantially modify the request (e.g., further aggregation, suppression of small cells) if re-identification is plausible. Blanket refusal is too rigid, but unconditional sharing ignores the real risk. One consent form does not cover other students.

A BCBA-D is providing fee-for-service consultation and realizes mid-engagement that the intervention they are designing will likely require ongoing support that exceeds their current competence in a specific area (severe self-injurious behavior with a possible medical etiology). They have general SIB experience but not with this specific medical presentation. The Ethics Code MOST requires the analyst to:

Answer: Obtain supervision or consultation from a practitioner competent in this specific presentation, disclose the limitation to the client's team, and continue only within the boundaries of demonstrated competence

The Ethics Code requires practitioners to operate within their boundaries of competence, but this does not mandate abrupt withdrawal when gaps are discovered mid-engagement — such withdrawal could itself harm the client. The appropriate response is to: (1) acknowledge the competence limitation, (2) seek supervision or consultation from someone with the specific expertise, and (3) disclose the limitation transparently to the treatment team so they can make informed decisions. Proceeding without disclosure is deceptive. Abrupt withdrawal without transition planning is abandonment. Self-directed literature review without oversight is insufficient for high-stakes clinical gaps.

A behavior analyst is subpoenaed to testify in a custody dispute. One attorney asks the analyst to provide clinical opinions about the parenting fitness of the non-custodial parent, whom the analyst has never directly assessed — only heard about secondhand through the client (a child). The Ethics Code's guidance on public statements and testimony MOST supports which response?

Answer: Decline to offer clinical opinions about individuals not directly assessed, clearly stating the basis and limits of the analyst's knowledge

The BACB Ethics Code prohibits behavior analysts from making diagnostic or clinical statements about individuals they have not directly and adequately assessed. Secondhand reports through a child client do not constitute a valid basis for clinical opinions about an unassessed adult. Offering even a 'qualified' opinion crosses this line because it still confers false professional credibility to what is fundamentally hearsay-based speculation. The analyst should testify only about what they directly observed and assessed, explicitly noting the limits of their knowledge regarding the unassessed parent. Requesting an emergency session would be impractical and ethically inappropriate in a legal context without proper referral.