Clinical Informed Consent and ABA

Graber et al. (2024) read every major U.S. court case about informed consent. They picked the ones that shape what clinicians must tell clients before treatment starts.

The authors turned the legal rules into plain steps a BCBA can follow. They matched each step to the BACB Ethics Code so you know you are covered both legally and ethically.

Two landmark cases matter most: Canterbury v. Spence and Cobbs v. Grant. Courts say you must share the risks a reasonable person would want to know, not just what you think is important.

If a client can show you left out a risk, they can sue. The paper lists the exact words judges look for and the paper trail you need to stay safe.

Falakfarsa et al. (2022) found that only a large share of published ABA studies report treatment-integrity data. Graber’s legal review says poor documentation is exactly what loses lawsuits. Together, the papers flag the same gap: we are not writing enough down.

Castañe et al. (1993) showed that 30 years ago most child studies skipped integrity checks. Graber updates the stakes: today, missing data can break both ethics and the law.

Plattner et al. (2023) report that BCBAs feel under-trained in soft skills. Graber adds a new must-have skill: knowing consent case law. Both papers call for stronger supervision targets.

You already get consent signed, but this review says that is not enough. You need to document what you said about risks, benefits, and alternatives. Add a short note in the file: "Discussed possible escape extinction crying, parent stated understanding." Do it every time and you meet both the Ethics Code and the courts.