Ethics Dialogue: Spelling to Communicate – Reply by Mary Jane Weiss
Your ethical code says no to spelling-to-communicate because no evidence shows it helps.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Weiss (2025) wrote a short ethics reply in Behavior Analysis in Practice. The paper is a position piece, not an experiment. It tells BCBAs why spelling-to-communicate breaks our ethical code.
What they found
The author finds no evidence that spelling-to-communicate works. Because it is unproven and can waste client hours, the Code says we must refuse to use it. Silence is better than false hope.
How this fits with other research
Zane (2025) gives the same warning in the same journal issue. Both papers act like direct replications: same stance, same target, same year.
Johnson (2022) also tells us to drop a harmful old practice—Rekers & Lovaas (1974). Together the three papers form a pattern: when science later shows harm or no effect, the Ethics Code tells us to stop.
Tavassoli et al. (2012) and Shogren (2023) flip the lens. They argue people with ID have a right to be in research. That right is not violated here; Weiss simply says only evidence-based tools should be used during that participation.
Why it matters
If a parent or teacher asks you to support spelling-to-communicate, you now have two 2025 ethics replies to cite. Share the Weiss or Zane paper, explain the missing evidence, and offer an AAC option that has data. Your refusal protects the client and keeps your license safe.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Put the Weiss (2025) PDF in your refusal folder—send it the next time someone asks for spelling-to-communicate.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Quigley and colleagues (2024, Behavior Analysis in Practice, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-024-01001-4) described a treatment recommendation scenario within a multi-disciplinary team setting for an adult with a developmental disability. The authors presented the information in a standard format to share how the involved parties identified, evaluated, and responded to the recommendation based upon their understanding of ethical decision-making. In this response, the right to effective treatment is emphasized as a primary obligation of the treatment team. The review of the procedure reveals that the intended intervention is one that is both unproven to be effective and similar to an intervention known to be harmful. Multiple available resources support the need to avoid the use of this intervention. Implications and suggestions for decision-making in clinical contexts are highlighted.
Behavior Analysis in Practice, 2025 · doi:10.1007/s40617-024-01024-x