Compatibility of person-centered planning and applied behavior analysis.
Big person-centered goals belong in ABA, but we need sharper rulers for friendship and choice.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Holburn (2001) wrote a think-piece, not an experiment. The author asked: can big-dream goals like 'make friends' or 'choose my own day' live inside hard-nosed ABA?
The paper lists the seven main parts of person-centered planning. It matches each part to an ABA principle like social validity or reinforcement.
What they found
The two worlds fit, but only up to a point. Goals such as 'having buddies' pass the social-significance test.
Yet we still have no good ruler for 'friendship' or 'autonomy.' Without clear units, we lose experimental control.
How this fits with other research
Delgado et al. (2024) extend the same line. They add a cultural-values filter: when the client's dream clashes with their family's culture, run a dual validity check so both sides win.
Karimi et al. (2024) tackle the measurement gap head-on. Their 2024 review maps five data holes that block large-scale studies on exactly the 'friendship' and 'autonomy' outcomes Holburn (2001) flagged.
Vinson et al. (2010) show kids with cerebral palsy name different quality-of-life domains than we expect. The finding backs Holburn (2001): let clients pick the targets, then hunt for a way to count them.
Why it matters
You can keep using ABA tools and still honor big PCP dreams. Start by asking the client what 'a good life' looks like. Next, break that dream into bits you can see, count, and graph. Until better friendship rulers arrive, use simple proxies like 'number of peer initiations' and keep social validity checks in every review cycle.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add one client-chosen life goal to the next plan and define the smallest observable step toward it.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
In response to Osborne (1999), the aims and practices of person-centered planning (PCP) are compared to the basic principles of applied behavior analysis set forth by Baer, Wolf, and Risley (1968, 1987). The principal goal of PCP is social integration of people with disabilities; it qualifies as a socially important behavior, and its problems have been displayed sufficiently. However, social integration is a complex social problem whose solution requires access to system contingencies that influence lifestyles. Nearly all of the component goals of PCP proposed by O'Brien (1987b) have been reliably quantified, although concurrent measurement of outcomes such as friendship, autonomy, and respect presents a formidable challenge. Behavioral principles such as contingency and contextual control are operative within PCP, but problems in achieving reliable implementation appear to impede an experimental analysis.
The Behavior analyst, 2001 · doi:10.1007/BF03392038