Practitioner Development

Lost in Translation: A Reply to Shyman (2016).

Cox et al. (2018) · Intellectual and developmental disabilities 2018
★ The Verdict

Drop "normalization" as a default goal—let each client’s values steer target selection.

✓ Read this if BCBAs who write treatment goals for any population.
✗ Skip if RBTs looking for direct-implementation protocols.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Sasson et al. (2018) wrote a reply to Shyman (2016).

They said ABA is not about forcing people to act "normal."

Instead, they urged BCBAs to pick goals that match each client’s own values.

02

What they found

The paper found no data; it is a theory piece.

The main point: drop blanket "normalization" goals.

Choose targets that give the client real-life reinforcers they care about.

03

How this fits with other research

Delgado et al. (2024) extends this idea. They give a step-by-step model for times when client values clash with wider cultural values.

Graber et al. (2025) is a successor paper. It warns that competing ABA reform brands could split the field unless we merge them into one shared framework.

Holburn (2001) is topically related. It shows person-centered planning goals can fit ABA, but measuring friendship or autonomy is still tricky.

04

Why it matters

Next time you write a treatment plan, ask the client or family what outcomes matter to them. Replace "look typical" goals with skills that open doors the client actually wants to walk through. This shift boosts social validity and keeps ABA person-centered.

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

Add one question to your intake: "What daily wins would make life better for you?" Build at least one goal around that answer.

02At a glance

Intervention
not applicable
Design
theoretical
Finding
not reported

03Original abstract

A recently published article sought to determine the extent to which behaviorism and humanism can be reconciled ( Shyman, 2016 ). However, the "current" conceptions of behaviorism and applied behavior analysis (ABA) used for the analysis were based on mischaracterizations, rendering moot many of the points made. Nevertheless, Shyman (2016) highlighted a very important question we believe all helping professionals should attend to: Should normalization be the focus of therapeutic goals? This response article was written to provide readers of this journal an accurate representation of behaviorism and ABA. We have also offered an alternative approach to answering the question of normalization that uses a behavior-by-behavior approach and individual client values as the deciding factors.

Intellectual and developmental disabilities, 2018 · doi:10.1352/1934-9556-56.5.278