On the relation between applied behavior analysis and positive behavioral support.

E and colleagues wrote a think-piece, not an experiment. They traced where PBS ideas come from and asked, 'Is this really different from ABA?'

They listed every core PBS tool—FBA, reinforcement, ecological changes—and showed each one started in ABA journals decades earlier.

The team found no new methods in PBS. Every strategy already lived inside ABA. Calling PBS a 'new field' just hides ABA's own tools under a fresh label.

They warned that splitting the names could split funding, training, and science.

Cruz-Montecinos et al. (2024) studied parents of kids with FASD. The parents said they were 'doing PBS,' yet every tactic they named—visual schedules, choice, reinforcement—came straight from ABA parent training. The 2002 paper predicted exactly that overlap.

Reed (1991) argued that ABA and basic animal labs had already 'speciated' and should stay apart. Carr et al. (2002) push the opposite view: keep PBS inside ABA to stop further splintering. Same method—conceptual essay—but opposite advice.

Fantino (1981) cheered ABA spreading into schools, clinics, and prisons. Twenty-one years later, Carr et al. (2002) worry the spread is creating false new brands like PBS. The earlier excitement now needs guardrails.

When you write a treatment plan, label the procedures as 'ABA' instead of hiding them under the PBS banner. Use one vocabulary in reports, supervision, and billing. That small habit keeps the field unified, makes supervision clearer, and protects funding streams that still list 'ABA' as the covered service.