The Scope of Practice of Applied Behavior Analysis in State Licensure Laws
State laws under-define ABA scope, so check the text before you let an insurer or boss shrink your job.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Morris et al. (2024) read every state licensure law that mentions ABA. They compared the text to Baer’s seven dimensions and the APBA Model Act. The goal was to see how tightly each statute defines what a BCBA may do.
What they found
No two states use the same wording. Some laws list only autism treatment. Others leave out assessment or caregiver training. The result is a patchwork that can shrink your scope of practice.
How this fits with other research
de la Cruz et al. (2025) and Fronapfel et al. (2025) extend this picture. They show how Texas and Nevada BCBAs fixed narrow laws through multi-year advocacy. Their stories give you a playbook for change.
Light-Shriner et al. (2025) and Snyder et al. (2024) add a twist. They find that school-based BCBAs already work beyond their formal scope. This looks like a contradiction: laws under-define ABA, yet BCBAs do the work anyway. The gap is real; the job happens because kids need services, not because the statute is clear.
Colombo et al. (2021) and Li et al. (2018) echo the same theme: training and legal boundaries often don’t match. Together these papers show that scope gaps live in both the law and the classroom.
Why it matters
If your state law is vague, an insurer or employer can deny payment for functional assessment, parent training, or consultation. Read the statute side-by-side with the APBA Model Act. Bring any gaps to your state association; use the Texas and Nevada roadmaps to draft precise language. A clearer law protects your practice and your clients.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Print your state licensure statute, highlight every ABA phrase, and circle anything missing next to the APBA Model Act.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The scope of applied behavior analysis has historically been defined by behavior analytic publications like Baer et al., Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 91, (1968). However, starting in 2009, state legislators began creating licensure laws for behavior analysts that formalized the scope of practice for applied behavior analysis (ABA) within the applicable states. The purpose of this study was twofold: (1) to evaluate the degree scope of practice statements found in state licensure laws aligned with the individual components of Baer et al.’s seven dimensions of ABA and the APBA Model Act and (2) to evaluate the consistency of the scope of practice statements across states. Each licensed state law was identified, and the section that outlined the scope of practice was isolated and coded. The results of this study identified varying degrees of alignment with the individual components of Baer et al.’s seven dimensions and the APBA Model Act, as well as inconsistencies in the scope of practice among states with licensure for ABA. The component scores of each content area will be discussed, along with the implications for practice.
Behavior Analysis in Practice, 2024 · doi:10.1007/s40617-024-00915-3