Collaboration between Behavior Analysts and Occupational Therapists in Autism Service Provision: Bridging the Gap

Gasiewski et al. (2021) read every paper they could find on BCBAs and OTs working together for kids with autism. They also talked to teams in the field. They wanted to map what helps and what blocks good teamwork.

The authors did not run an experiment. They wrote a story-style review that lists barriers like ‘we speak different jargon’ and models like ‘weekly joint planning’.

The big point: teamwork fails when each side stays in its silo. It works when staff learn the other discipline’s words, respect their tools, and follow a clear plan for sharing goals and data.

No numbers were reported; the paper is a roadmap, not an outcome study.

Henderson et al. (2023) picked up the same baton and ran further. Their 2023 review keeps the BCBA-OT focus but adds an ethics lens, calling supervision and team audits a ‘compliance duty.’ The message is the same—collaborate—yet the newer paper widens the ‘why’ from better results to moral obligation.

Vivanti et al. (2025) looks at why even perfect plans stall. Using implementation science, they show that payment rules and agency policies can still sink joint BCBA-OT programs. Gasiewski gave the team recipe; Giacomo reminds us the kitchen must also be stocked.

Meyer (1999) said the same thing twenty-two years earlier about BCBAs and social workers. The tune is older, but it’s the same song: learn your partner’s language, share the client.

You can start small. Invite the OT to your next goal meeting. Ask her to explain one sensory term and you explain one reinforcement term. Write one shared objective each week. These micro-moves cut referrals, reduce overlap, and give the child one coherent plan instead of two competing ones.