Association for Behavior Analysis International

Automated data collection systems have the potential to remove much of the human error involved in data collection and preserve the reliability and accuracy of measures in behavioral analysis. The most recent review to determine how much automated data collection is used was a 1977 study which found that 16% of JABA articles utilized automated systems. The present study systematically reviewed the literature of three applied behavior analytic journals in order to determine how many published studies are using automated data collection. It also examined the most recent issue of JEAB in order to compare use of the technology in experimental research relative to applied research. The results demonstrated that while technology has increased over the past 40 years, the use of it to record data in applied research is still limited. In applied journals, less than 12% of published studies utilized automated systems. In JEAB, however, 85% of studies used automated data collection. Implications for future directions in the application of technology in data collection and types of automated systems available will be discussed.

Scientific works must be precise and thorough to allow for both systematic and direct replication. However, when attempting to replicate experiments researchers may not find details in published studies, such as number of participants run in each session. Decades of research in social psychology has demonstrated that group size can influence the performance of participants. Reviews of 30 years of three behavior analytic journals, The Psychological Record, Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, and Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, were conducted and a total of 692 articles were found to be human lab studies. Approximately 48% of these articles did not specify the number of participants run at a time. Of that 48%, approximately 91% provided descriptive statistics of number of participants run at a time. Little behavior analytic research has systematically explored the presence of observers on performance of participants. Due to decades of research showing consistent effects in social psychology, authors of human behavior analytic research should begin to specify these variables to facilitate both direct and systematic replications and further the field.

A literature review was developed using PsycINFO database about procrastination studies, regarding procedure, dependent and independent variables, and participants. It was considered english or portuguese papers, in which procrastination was the main object of investigation, and in the period from 2010 to 2015. From 114 papers, 64 were selected and categorized according to participant characteristics; procedures; independent and dependent variables. Participants were more frequently undergraduate students (59.4%) followed by high school students (14.1%). Procrastination was measured using scales or tests (indirect behavior measures) (n=58; 90.6%), and/or through direct measure of a procrastination behavior (n=17; 26.6%). In most studies (n = 53, 82.8%), procrastination was correlated with personality traits or personal beliefs, measured directly (n = 11; 17.2%) or indirectly (n = 42; 65.6%). Only 6 studies developed an intervention seeking procrastination decrease. Of these, one of them had indirect measure and five had procrastination direct measure, but just one was from Behavior Analysis perspective, through contingence manipulation in responding tests. These results showed that major of studies correlate procrastination with some personality characteristic and assessed procrastination by indirect measures. Behavior Analysis may contribute to this research field with variable control, direct measures and contingencies analysis, expanding dialogue with others disciplines.

Private events, such as thoughts, feelings, and recurring dreams, are often referred to as inner behavior. Precision teaching is a series of guiding principles and tools used to count and record behavior, primarily using the Standard Celeration Chart (SCC). Precision Teachers have historically not limited their scope to behaviors which are directly observable to more than one person, and have often placed self-observed inner behavior onto the Standard Celeration Chart. In the following discussion, a literature review was conducted to analyze patterns regarding the years and months in which researchers and practitioners have demonstrated an active interest observing and counting inner behavior. Following a discussion of how much interest has historically been shown towards treating inner behavior as countable units--authors will discuss the future implications and potential directions for the counting and interacting with graphically represented counts of inner behavior including self monitoring, and improving therapeutic outcomes. Authors also suggest that more applied examples of charting inner behavior be made available for more broad academic audiences.

Although it seems clear that a hippocampal slice does not constitute a whole organism while an unmolested lab rat does, the intuitive distinction blurs somewhere in the continuous changes and variations that an organism may undergo during a lifetime or within an experimental procedure. Genetically modified organisms, organisms with brain damage or lesions (including injured humans), or even organisms with missing limbs/body parts constitute a challenge to the behavioral community; our verbal behavior categorizing them as whole or not will likely be varied from person to person. We must then challenge ourselves to discover more precisely what function this distinction serves in the behavior of the scientist. As a possible solution, we may expect that behavioral principles will apply differentially to the two categories (a functional definition). If so, differential behavior by the scientist could come in the form of separating mechanism from behavior and studying whole/not-whole organisms separately, expecting whole-part relationships rather than horizontal generality. Yet if we do adopt such a functional definition of intact, we are forced to make that category more inclusive than we have in the past. If activity measured in some part of a body is considered behavior if it acts according to behavioral principles (it is sensitive to antecedents and consequences), then some subset of neural responses must be considered behavior since a number of experimental findings have indeed described how they can enter functional relationships with antecedent and consequential stimulation (e.g., Sommer, 1987; Miltner, Larbig, & Braun, 1986). However, this exclusively functional definition would not rule out some extreme examples, such as of neural responses measured in isolated hippocampal slices. Yet we propose that a truly scientifically useful concept of the whole organism requires this or another functional definition, even if the resulting lines of fracture offend our intuition.

As stated by contemporary philosophers of science, theories can hardly apply to scientific acceptance without anticipating some of their potential technological developments. Behavior analysis is no exception: the two-way street between behavioral basic science and behavioral technologies represents this reciprocal feedback circuit. But when we are to talk about technology in the context of behavior analysis, on what exactly are we talking about? Skinners work encompasses not only the detailed proposal for a science of behavior and its philosophical grounds, but also a particular view on the issue of technology. This work aims to explore Skinners philosophy of technology, with special focus on its view about the relations between science, technology and society. Given the growing trend in applying behavioral technologies in the field of public policy a possible realization of what Skinner envisioned as cultural design this is an effort that deserves to be conducted, as it should be made clear what is meant by technology in general, and by behavioral technologies and their application in society, in particular.

Foundations of ABA and PBS The foundations of ABA and PBS will be explored from a vantage point of a classically trained Behavior Analyst who practices in Positive Behavior Support. Early history of ABA influencing the application of PBS will be discussed and arguments over the past few decades will be presented from both sides of the debate. Concluding remarks from the author will be provided as to the present day status of the relationship between ABA and PBS how clinicians in each domain can best address it. Opportunity for renewed collaboration will be discussed. ABA and PBS in Practice A review of common PBS practices and terminology will be provided, highlighting how the practices are rooted to behavior analytic principles. Tier I and Tier II practices will be examined from the perspective of behavior analysis and PBS terminology will be presented in behavior analytic verbal behavior. Additionally, basic behavior analytic principles will be described and application of the principles will be discussed through examples, specifically with regard to Tier III supports. This section of the presentation will enlighten attendees to the different language used within ABA and PBS and demonstrate that the foundational principles are the same. Debunking Myths of PBS In light of the great benefits to conducting interdisciplinary work, it is not uncommon for practitioners to harbor misconceptions without a rich understanding of each contributing discipline. PBS is no stranger to ABA, yet many practitioners of ABA maintain common misinterpretations and misunderstandings of PBS concepts and practices. Common myths of PBS will be presented and addressed.

The term applied behavior analysis has become part of common vernacular in the professional community, but does not sit as well with non-behavioral analysts. Applied behavior science is a more fitting term for a discipline that applies behavioral principles to make positive social changes through structured intervention procedures. Unfortunately, applied behavior analysis has been plagued with a dissemination disadvantage, partially due to the term analysis. For this study, an in-depth examination will be conducted on a population unfamiliar with either applied behavior analysis or applied behavioral science. Perceptions of the terms will be systematically assessed. A preliminary study of 32 research assistants was conducted in a research center focusing on community-based behavioral interventions. Despite a strong understanding of applied behavior analysis, most of these participants still showed a preference for applied behavioral science. For example, on average students reported believing applied behavioral scientists earned more money than applied behavior analysts. Considering these results are from individuals with a strong understanding of applied behavior analysis, the results from a large non-academic sample are expected to be even more extreme. Albeit painful, these findings suggest a shift from the term analysis to science to promote a more prestigious discipline and profession.

On Terms have been developed in order to foster similar connotations amongst central terms within Behavior Analysis. On Terms pieces have historically presented a term with multiple definitions, then suggested one to use in the future. In the present discussion a literature review of these articles will provide information on changes in how terms are used in research following publication of a given On Terms. The authors of this poster suggest that terms within research should adopt the idea that On Terms advise, however, it is noted that On Terms might not yield effective outcomes in creating a common language amongst practitioners and researchers. Authors, further suggest new systems and means of making common terms clear and unified. Lastly, authors will discuss whether or not there is a need to improve the function of On Terms or if they are currently being used successfully. If terms are not being used successfully, an analysis of the articles, and connotations used following their publication will speak to whether or not provided definitions were appropriate or not for the use in behavior analysis.

In his critics to causal thought, Merleau-Ponty criticizes the analyses of psychological phenomena in terms of functional relations between variables, in a sense borrowed from Math and Logic, accusing this approach of maintaining the analyses in an external and mechanical level. On the other hand, Merleau-Ponty defends a sense of functioning to functional approach the elements get their meaning considering their role on the functioning dynamic of the phenomena. Merleau-Pontys arguments are challenging to Behavior Analyses, considering that functional analysis of variables is the way indicated by Skinner, inspired on Ernest Machs work, to overlap the mechanical linear causal approach. This work aimed to discuss the critical thesis of Merleau-Ponty and explore its impact in a Behavior Analytic approach. Some exerts of Skinners work about functional analysis was analyzed, showing that in spite of functional be predominantly used in a sense of relation between variables, it is possible to find a comprehension of functional related to functioning. Some implications of this discussion to questions on the explanation model in Radical Behaviorism are pointed out.

In the rise of cognitive psychology in the 1970's, Skinner struggled to defend the thesis that the experimental analysis of behavior could indeed address the study of so-called higher mental processes, including knowledge and thinking. To do so he introduced the notorious concept of rule-governed behavior (interestingly, only remotely related to his analysis of verbal behavior): behavior under the control of a particular type of discriminative stimuli that specify contingencies. This conceptual introduction went relatively unnoticed until in the late 70's and early 80's special interest was placed on the extent and nature of the differences between human and nonhuman subjects in operant experiments. The experimental and conceptual analysis of control by rules became an important research topic in the analysis of behavior during the 80's and the early 90's, to only fade in prevalence and interest in later years. The rise and fall of this experimental tradition is explored, paying particular attention to unsolved issues, and using this history to critically illustrate the difficulties and struggles of our discipline to deal with the social behavior of normal-developing, verbal adults.