Research Ethics for Behavior Analysts in Practice.

Behavior analysts in practice have an advantage over many others in the helping professions-they have at their disposal a robust science of behavior change informed primarily by single-case experimental research designs. This is advantageous because the research literature is focused on individual behavior change and has direct relevance to behavior analysts who need to change the behavior of individuals in need. Also, the same experimental designs used to advance the basic and applied sciences can be used to evaluate and refine specific procedures as they are put into practice. Thus, behavior-analytic research and practice are often intertwined. However, when behavior analysts in practice conduct research and use their own clients as participants, several important ethical issues need to be considered. Research with human participants is subject to careful ethical oversight, but the ethical guidelines that have been developed are usually described in terms of research conducted by nonpractitioners working in universities or institutions. This article focuses on several areas of special concern when conducting research in practice settings, including dual relationships and conflicts of interest, obtaining informed consent, and using ethical review panels.

Behavior analytic jargon does not seem to influence treatment acceptability ratings.

Some have argued that behavior analysts have insulated themselves by eschewing the vernacular and adopting idiosyncratic and sometimes counterintuitive technical terms to describe their science and practice. Because of this, behavior analysis plays a minor role in psychology and related fields and effective behavior-change interventions go unused. All told, findings about the effects of behavior-analytic jargon are mixed. Studies that provided technical terms independent of context have produced unfavorable results, whereas studies that have provided context have produced positive or neutral results, overall. This study evaluated the effects of behavioral jargon on the acceptability ratings of several applied behavior analysis interventions described in terms of varying target behaviors, populations, and settings. We presented brief vignettes adapted from published research articles that were described in either jargon or nonjargon versions. There were no appreciable differences in the rated acceptability of interventions described with or without jargon.