Ethics Dialogue: Spelling to Communicate – Reply by Abraham Graber

Graber (2025) wrote a short ethics piece. It tells BCBAs how to talk with clients who want treatments that have no solid data.

The paper uses Spelling to Communicate as the example, but the tips apply to any non-EBP request.

The big idea: don’t scold or block. Instead, listen first, share facts kindly, and keep the relationship strong.

This keeps the door open so the client may later accept evidence-based help.

Walmsley et al. (2019) gives you a four-step checklist you can use during that talk: search the literature, spot fads, rate evidence quality, and look for a behavioral mechanism. Graber adds the polite tone; Walmsley adds the script.

Gilroy et al. (2022) shows caregivers will swap low-evidence treatments for high-evidence ones if you clearly explain the strength of the science. Graber’s gentle style makes that explanation easier to hear.

Cudré-Mauroux (2010) and Taylor (2002) both warn that drugs for aggression in ID lack proof. Graber’s method gives you a way to share those facts without sounding dismissive.

You will meet parents who saw a viral video and want the next shiny therapy. If you flatly say “no,” they may walk away and the learner loses services. Graber’s recipe—empathy first, data second—keeps them at the table. Try it next time a family mentions a non-EBP: ask why it appeals to them, then walk through Walmsley’s four checks together.