Are Recent Changes to the BACB’s Ethics Code on Research Appropriate for all Subdisciplines?
The BACB Ethics Code asks for clinical-level review even when you are just counting widgets—OBM researchers already skip those steps.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Wine et al. (2025) sent a short survey to OBM researchers. They asked one question: do you skip informed consent or IRB review in your work?
The authors turned the answers into a position paper. They argue the BACB Ethics Code is too strict for low-risk OBM studies.
What they found
Many OBM researchers admit they often leave out formal consent and IRB approval.
The paper claims the current code treats office studies like medical trials. That mismatch slows down harmless workplace research.
How this fits with other research
Hyten (2022) and Hantula (2022) said the same thing earlier. Both argued the BACB code hurts OBM practice. Wine et al. add fresh survey data that shows practitioners already ignore parts of the code.
Cymbal et al. (2022) found another gap: three-quarters of OBM articles skip procedural-integrity reports. Together the papers show OBM research is under-reported in two places—ethics forms and method details.
Weeden et al. (2010) saw the same pattern in self-injury studies. Safeguards were rarely spelled out. The problem is not unique to OBM; it spans many behavior-analytic fields.
Why it matters
If you run workplace projects, check which ethics rules truly protect staff and which ones just add paperwork. Push for guidelines that fit low-risk settings so useful OBM research can move forward without breaking existing rules.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →List every ethics step in your next workplace study and mark the ones that do not increase real safety—prepare to explain why you might drop them.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Over the past decade, there have been numerous calls to diversify areas of practice within applied behavior analysis (ABA) and broaden our consumer base. Although there have been some success stories, ABA practitioners still largely serve individuals diagnosed with intellectual and developmental disabilities. We contend that it may not be beneficial to be overly prescriptive in research ethics with human subjects as different areas of work may have their own standards and/or best practices. To illustrate this point, we surveyed active researchers in organizational behavior management (OBM), a subdiscipline with arguably less vulnerable clientele, about their research practices related to approval and consent. The survey indicated that OBM researchers do not always obtain informed consent or formal research review prior to the onset of data collection. Other areas in which human behavior is frequently studied outside the laboratory are discussed to expand upon conclusions and recommendations.
Behavior Analysis in Practice, 2025 · doi:10.1007/s40617-023-00820-1