A peek into the room where it happens: Quantifying <scp>ABA</scp>'s influence on public policy discussions

Critchfield (2024) wrote a position paper. He asked a simple question. How can we show that ABA shapes real laws and rules?

The author did not run an experiment. He looked at how often lawmakers and agencies cite ABA articles. He calls this 'policy-discussion citations.'

The paper says we should track these policy citations like we track client data. If a bill, brief, or rule mentions a journal article, that is a hit.

Counting these hits gives ABA a public-impact graph. It shows the field is useful beyond clinic walls.

Halstead (2002) found that ABA articles mostly cite each other. The new paper answers that worry. It says look at policy rooms, not psychology journals.

Geckeler et al. (2000) argued that big literature reviews prove generality. Critchfield agrees but wants the same logic for policy. Aggregate citations, not single studies, show real-world reach.

Hart et al. (1968) said ABA should borrow PBIS tactics to spread. The 2024 view updates that idea. Use data dashboards, not just outreach tricks.

You can start small. Keep a spreadsheet of any time your state's bills, waiver manuals, or school board docs mention ABA research. Note the article, date, and context. After a month you will have a mini impact graph to share with funders and parents. It turns invisible influence into visible data.