Cultural Humility in the Practice of Applied Behavior Analysis

Wright (2019) read 226 verbal-behavior articles from 1978 to 2016. She checked whether each paper said the participants' age, gender, race, money status, or first language.

She used a simple yes/no checklist. The goal was to see how often studies describe who they worked with.

Almost every paper listed age and gender. Fewer than two in ten listed race, money status, or language.

In short, we know the kids' ages, but we rarely know if they were Black, White, poor, or bilingual.

Petursdottir et al. (2017) counted how many verbal-behavior studies exist. They show the field is growing fast. Wright shows that same growth hides missing facts about people.

Bao et al. (2017) mapped autism verbal-operant studies. They also skipped race and money data. Wright proves the blind spot is field-wide, not just one review.

Lemons et al. (2015) audited JEAB papers and found sex of animals was often missing. Wright finds the same hole in human studies: basic descriptors get left out.

When you read a mand or intraverbal study, you can't tell if it works the same for Spanish-speaking kids or low-income homes. That matters for picking interventions and for fair treatment. Start adding race, SES, and language to your intake forms and your write-ups. One extra line in Method helps the next BCBA know if the protocol fits her client.