Practitioner Development

Ethics Dialogue: Spelling to Communicate – Reply by Thomas Zane

Zane (2025) · Behavior Analysis in Practice 2025
★ The Verdict

Your ethical duty is to refuse spelling-to-communicate because it lacks evidence.

✓ Read this if BCBAs who serve non-speaking clients or sit on IEP teams.
✗ Skip if Practitioners who only work with fully verbal adults.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Zane wrote a short position paper. He told BCBAs to stop using spelling-to-communicate.

He said the method has no science behind it. He reminded readers that our Code says we must use only proven tools.

02

What they found

The paper does not give new data. It gives a clear rule: if a practice lacks proof, you must say no.

Even when parents beg you. Even when the school team already bought the letter board.

03

How this fits with other research

Johnson (2022) made the same kind of call. That paper told us to drop Rekers & Lovaas (1974) from our teaching lists. Both papers say the same thing: outdated or unproven work must go.

Hantula (2022) sounds like it clashes. That paper claims the BACB Code is useless for OBM. Zane, however, uses the Code as the very reason to reject spelling-to-communicate. The gap is about setting, not truth. Zane speaks to direct ABA service, while Hantula talks about big workplace systems.

Hickey et al. (2021) also warns about harm. It tells autism-screening researchers to count possible harm, not just benefit. Zane applies the same worry to therapy: if we cannot show gain, the risk alone is reason to stop.

04

Why it matters

You may face a team that wants spelling-to-communicate next week. This paper gives you firm ground to refuse. You can cite the BACB Code and this position statement. Saying no protects the client and keeps your license safe.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Print the BACB Code section 2.09 and keep it in your bag for the next IEP meeting.

02At a glance

Intervention
not applicable
Design
theoretical
Population
developmental delay
Finding
not reported

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 multidisciplinary 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. The core ethical principles mandated by behavioral ethics were described precisely, with the required recommendation crystal clear and unwavering. The recipient of such advise would know exactly what to think and how to react to such a treatment recommendation should they be in a similar situation in their respective clinical setting.

Behavior Analysis in Practice, 2025 · doi:10.1007/s40617-024-01023-y