Is ACTraining Behavior Analytic? A Review of Tarbox et al. (2020)
ACTraining may not be behavior analytic, so tell clients when you step outside ABA boundaries.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Cihon et al. (2025) wrote a theoretical paper. They looked at Tarbox et al. (2020) and asked one question: Is ACTraining really behavior analysis?
They checked the parts of ACTraining against our field's core rules. They did not run new experiments. They read, thought, and argued.
What they found
The authors say ACTraining misses key ABA features. They claim it is closer to counseling than to behavior analysis.
Because of that, they warn BCBAs may be working outside our scope when we use ACTraining alone.
How this fits with other research
Hake et al. (1983) told us to bring lab discoveries into practice. Cihon et al. flip that coin: not every clinic label belongs in the ABA tent.
Li et al. (2018) show tight data modeling that shouts 'behavior analytic.' The new paper says ACTraining lacks that same shout.
Morris et al. (2021) use formal ETBD equations to explain self-injury. The contrast makes ACTraining look even less analytic.
Why it matters
If you coach staff or train parents with ACTraining tools, add a clear verbal disclaimer: 'This part is acceptance-based, not pure ABA.' Keep your BACB badge clean, and point clients to true behavior-analytic steps when they need them.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add one sentence to your consent form: 'ACT-based activities are coaching tools, not behavior-analytic treatment.'
02At a glance
03Original abstract
In an effort to determine if acceptance and commitment training (ACTraining) can be called behavior analytic, Tarbox et al. (2020) evaluated whether (1) ACTraining methods can be linked to behavior analytic principles, (2) they align with the seven dimensions of applied behavior analysis described by Baer et al. (1968, 1987), and (3) ACTraining relates to items on the Behavior Analyst Certification Board (BACB) task list. We briefly address, from a pragmatic, functional-analytic perspective, Tarbox et al.’s arguments and contend that they are not sufficient to conclude that ACTraining meets the conditions under which it would be considered behavior analytic. If this is the case, ACTraining would not fall under the scope of practice of Board Certified Behavior Analysts (BCBAs) and, moreover, may pose ethical problems for any BCBAs implementing ACTraining without a disclaimer that doing so is not covered by the BACB credential.
Behavior Analysis in Practice, 2025 · doi:10.1007/s40617-022-00680-1