Applied Behavior Analysis vs. Behavior Analysis: The Four Branches, the BCBA Boundary, and Where the Lines Blur

The four-branch architecture, in plain English

The discipline of behavior analysis is conventionally split into four branches that share one subject matter (behavior as the dependent variable) but differ in what question they ask of it. The experimental analysis of behavior (EAB) is the basic-science branch — typically lab-based, focused on parametric manipulations of variables like reinforcement schedules, motivating operations, and stimulus control to discover behavioral processes. The conceptual analysis of behavior is the philosophical/theoretical branch — radical-behaviorist accounts of private events, verbal behavior, rule-governance, and the logic of explanation in a natural science of behavior. Applied behavior analysis (ABA) takes the principles EAB discovers and the framework conceptual analysis articulates, and applies them to socially significant human behavior — autism intervention, education, OBM, behavioral medicine, sustainability, sport, and roughly 350 other documented domains Heward et al. (2022). The fourth branch — the practice of behavioral services (BSP) — is the set of activities behavior analysts engage in to deliver services (assessment, supervision, billing, ethics, consultation) that are not "applied research" but are how the applied science actually reaches people (Morris et al., 2024). Each branch has its own journals, methods, and quality criteria; conflating them is the most common conceptual error practitioners encounter when laypeople, attorneys, regulators, or other professionals talk about "ABA" as if it were the whole field.

Skinner's vision and the historical split

The applied branch is younger than the discipline that birthed it. Behavior analysis began as Skinner's experimental program — operant chambers, cumulative records, schedules of reinforcement — and remained largely a basic-science enterprise through the 1950s. The shift toward ABA crystallized around two events: early translational work by Ayllon, Azrin, Bijou, and Lovaas extending operant principles to human clinical and educational problems, and the 1968 founding of the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (JABA) Morris & Peterson (2022). A history-of-the-field analysis tracing 40 landmark articles concludes ABA became recognized as a distinct domain only after JABA's founding codified that practice must demonstrate socially significant behavior change — not merely behavioral demonstration — and "applied" began functioning as a boundary marking work aimed at problems of human importance versus laboratory or animal work Morris & Peterson (2022). The same year, Baer, Wolf, and Risley's "Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis" set the seven dimensions (applied, behavioral, analytic, technological, conceptually systematic, effective, generality) that still define ABA — and those criteria still operate in U.S. state licensure law (Morris et al., 2024).

How licensure operationalizes the boundary

The most concrete answer to "what is ABA versus behavior analysis?" comes from the legal infrastructure. A content analysis of every U.S. state ABA licensure statute compared scope-of-practice language against Baer et al.'s seven dimensions and the APBA Model Act, and found that state laws formally delimit ABA as a distinct subfield focused on socially significant behavioral improvements while explicitly excluding diagnosis, psychotherapy, long-term counseling, cognitive therapy, and related services (Morris et al., 2024). The exclusions matter as much as the inclusions: the law does not say "behavior analysts cannot do these things" — it says "the applied behavior analysis license does not authorize these things." A BCBA who is also a licensed psychologist may legally diagnose; the BCBA credential alone does not. The BCBA credential is specifically a credential to practice the applied branch, not authority over the entire science (Morris et al., 2024). Across state lines, statutes vary, so read your state's exact scope language and reference it in documentation when justifying services to funders or families (Morris et al., 2024).

Research designs differ between branches

The two branches that produce most published evidence — EAB and ABA — use overlapping but distinct toolkits Jarmolowicz et al. (2021). EAB classically employs within-subject parametric designs in controlled preparations: organisms exposed to systematically varied schedules, reinforcer magnitudes, or motivating operations, with rate, latency, and choice allocation measured under steady-state conditions. ABA uses single-case experimental designs (SCEDs) — reversal/withdrawal, multiple baseline, alternating treatments, changing criterion — to demonstrate experimental control over socially significant behavior in real environments. The applied branch additionally relies on group-design comparative effectiveness work and increasingly on quantitative-modeling approaches. Applied Quantitative Analysis of Behavior (AQAB), formalized in 2021, is theory-driven, using quantitative behavioral models (matching law, behavioral momentum, behavioral economic demand) applied to real-world problems without being identical to either EAB or ABA Jarmolowicz et al. (2021). For a working BCBA, a JEAB paper asks a different kind of question than a JABA paper, and a Behavior Analysis in Practice paper asks a third kind, focused on the BSP/service-delivery layer.

Where the lines blur in practice

The four-branch model is clean on paper and porous in practice. Modern translational work straddles EAB and ABA: the performance-based IISCA, validated as a trauma-informed functional analysis in Behavior Analysis in Practice, is squarely an ABA assessment but is grounded in EAB-derived concepts of motivating operations and within-subject control (Jessel et al., 2024). Telehealth-delivered training in trial-based functional analysis (TBFA) sits at the intersection of ABA, BSP, and conceptual analysis (Togashi, 2025). The applied branch has also been splintering into branded sub-strands — "Today's ABA," "Progressive ABA," "trauma-informed ABA," "compassionate ABA" — that critics argue blur the boundary with the broader discipline and confuse consumers and regulators; the reform argument is that innovations should be treated as continuous improvements within behavior analysis rather than as new branded forms of "ABA" Graber & Graber (2025). The relationship between ABA and adjacent models like Positive Behavior Support is itself a boundary dispute: a position paper on ABA and PBS in the UK and Ireland argues that PBS, EIBI, PECS, and PRT are all applications of behavior-analytic science and should be labeled "ABA:PBS," "ABA:EIBI," etc., to signal empirical grounding and prevent eclectic drift (Stalford et al., 2024).

"Applied" is not synonymous with "comprehensive" or "autism"

Two further distinctions matter within ABA itself. First, comprehensive ABA — typically delivered in early intensive autism programs — is not the same as a single behavior-analytic tactic. An ADDIE-based tutorial walks through the assembly of 28 evidence-based ABA procedures into a coordinated treatment package, with the result described as greater than the sum of its parts (LaMarca et al., 2024). A BCBA running a token economy and a discrete trial program is doing ABA tactics; comprehensive ABA is the integrated programming layer above that (LaMarca et al., 2024). Second, ABA is not synonymous with autism intervention. A 2025 historical-context analysis argues ABA should be reframed not as a blanket "treatment for autism" but as one application of the broader science — individualized, environmentally focused, socially valid — rather than functioning as a uniform autism protocol (McComas et al., 2025). The companion paper on ableism in everyday ABA practice catalogs how the gap between the broader values of behavior analysis and their day-to-day application produces deficit-based language and pathologizing of autistic traits — a gap the field is actively trying to close, with seven concrete steps proposed for affirming neurodiversity within ABA practice without abandoning rigor (McComas et al., 2025) (Mathur et al., 2024).

Methods inside the applied branch are still expanding

The applied branch is widening its methodological aperture. Recent papers argue that qualitative methods — interviews, focus groups, document coding, narrative inquiry — can fulfill the applied, technical, and generalizable dimensions of behavior analysis and broaden what counts as behavior-analytic inquiry (Burney et al., 2024). They position qualitative work as complementary, not substitute — quantitative SCED still anchors causal claims, but qualitative interviews enrich functional assessments for covert or low-frequency high-risk behaviors (running away, trafficking, family violence) where direct observation is impractical or unethical (Crosland et al., 2025). Intersectional qualitative methods can also address ABA's documented issues with cultural responsiveness and concerns from disability communities about compliance-based and normalizing goals (D’Agostino & Pinkelman, 2025) (Mejía-Buenaño, 2025) (Diller & Li, 2025).

Behavior analysts beyond direct service: consultation, supervision, OBM

The behavior-analytic identity extends past direct one-to-one service delivery. Only 11% of BCBA programs and 3% of BCaBA programs offer dedicated coursework in consultation, despite behavior analysts increasingly providing indirect services — coaching teachers, training paraprofessionals, advising school teams (Mann et al., 2024). The LADER framework (Listen, Ask, Determine, Engage, Reflect) makes the same point operationally: behavior analysts spend much of their professional life differentiating the wider science from common ABA misconceptions in real time and need a structured discussion scaffold to do it well (Coy et al., 2024). A coordination study of 11 high-quality autism-intervention organizations showed that system-wide fidelity to behavior-analytic principles produces measurable child gains across agencies (Townsend et al., 2024). A 2024 survey of 276 BCBAs and 118 school psychologists found rising professional redundancy because both groups now receive nearly identical behavioral assessment training, fueling turf conflicts (Snyder et al., 2024).

The audience question: who is a "behavior analyst"?

Putting these threads together, the corpus supports a simple practitioner-facing rule. A behavior analyst is anyone working within the science of behavior analysis — basic researchers in EAB, theorists in conceptual analysis, applied researchers and clinicians in ABA, and practitioners working at the BSP layer. An applied behavior analyst is the subset working in the applied branch on socially significant human behavior. A BCBA is the subset of applied behavior analysts who hold the Board Certified Behavior Analyst credential — which authorizes practice of ABA under U.S. state licensure law and whose scope is explicitly drawn from Baer et al.'s seven dimensions and the APBA Model Act (Morris et al., 2024). The Patient Outcome Planning Calculator (POP-C), validated for ABA dosage forecasting and explaining 72%–86% of variance in pilot samples, illustrates how granular the applied branch has become — yet every piece of that infrastructure is downstream of the basic-science principles and conceptual-analytic framing inherited from the rest of the discipline (Toby et al., 2024). The science is the trunk; ABA is one of the four branches; BCBA is a credentialed sub-population working on that branch.

The corpus distinguishing ABA from the broader discipline is mostly theoretical, historical, and field-of-practice — not single-subject experimental — because the branching itself is a definitional and regulatory question, not an empirical one Morris & Peterson (2022) (Morris et al., 2024).

Historical and conceptual analyses. The history-of-ABA paper traces 40 landmark articles to document how the qualifier "applied" emerged as a boundary after JABA's 1968 founding Morris & Peterson (2022). The "ABA from A to Z" review catalogs 350+ documented application domains Heward et al. (2022). The "ABA at a Crossroads" position paper analyzes branded sub-strands and argues for consolidating reform under a unified behavior-analytic identity Graber & Graber (2025). The Stalford et al. PBS and ABA discussion proposes the "ABA:" prefix nomenclature (Stalford et al., 2024). The AQAB editorial stakes out applied quantitative analysis of behavior as a methodological tradition distinct from EAB and ABA Jarmolowicz et al. (2021). The historical-context analysis reframes ABA as one application rather than a uniform autism intervention (McComas et al., 2025).

Legal and regulatory analysis. The state-licensure scope-of-practice content analysis is the field's clearest legal operationalization of the ABA-vs-behavior-analysis boundary — a structured reading of every state statute and the APBA Model Act, carrying the weight of law rather than effect sizes (Morris et al., 2024).

Methodological contributions on widening the applied branch. Five recent papers argue for integrating qualitative methods into behavior-analytic inquiry and training (Burney et al., 2024) (Crosland et al., 2025) (D’Agostino & Pinkelman, 2025) (Mejía-Buenaño, 2025) (Diller & Li, 2025). The neurodiversity-affirming and ableism papers sit at the conceptual layer, drawing on first-hand observations rather than controlled designs (McComas et al., 2025) (Mathur et al., 2024).

Single-subject and applied-clinical evidence. The performance-based IISCA validation grounds trauma-informed FA squarely within ABA practice (Jessel et al., 2024). Togashi's TBFA training package shows that applied procedures can be installed in resource-scarce regions (Togashi, 2025). The POP-C dosage calculator was validated in pilot samples (Toby et al., 2024). The Alliance for Scientific Autism Intervention case-series describes coordinated ABA delivery across 11 organizations (Townsend et al., 2024). The ADDIE-based tutorial shows how isolated tactics get assembled into integrated treatment (LaMarca et al., 2024).

Field-of-practice surveys. The interprofessional BCBA-and-school-psychologist survey (276 BCBAs, 118 SPs) documents rising training overlap and turf conflicts (Snyder et al., 2024). The consultation-training review documents the 11%/3% coverage gap in BCBA/BCaBA programs (Mann et al., 2024).

Bottom line. The convergent picture is strong for the definitional and regulatory claims — that ABA is one branch of a broader four-branch discipline, that "applied" is operationalized through JABA's founding criteria, Baer et al.'s seven dimensions, the APBA Model Act, and U.S. state licensure law Morris & Peterson (2022) (Morris et al., 2024). It is appropriately weaker for any claim that one branch produces "better" outcomes than another — that question is not well-posed at the branch level.

Practitioners encounter this distinction in concrete moments — court testimony, IEP meetings, insurance audits, regulatory complaints. A defensible logic:

1. A funder, family, or attorney asks "is this ABA?" Reference your state's exact statutory scope of practice; states explicitly delimit ABA via Baer et al.'s seven dimensions and the APBA Model Act, and your documentation should cite the specific scope language (Morris et al., 2024).
2. A multidisciplinary team uses "ABA" for everything behaviorally informed. Use a structured scaffold — LADER (Listen, Ask, Determine, Engage, Reflect) — to differentiate the broader science from ABA-specific misconceptions in real time without escalating (Coy et al., 2024).
3. A team proposes PBS, PRT, PECS, or EIBI as "alternatives to ABA." These are themselves applications of behavior-analytic science; label them as ABA-rooted (e.g., ABA:PBS, ABA:EIBI) and surface the single-case data underlying them (Stalford et al., 2024).
4. A clinical decision requires a quantitative behavioral model — matching law, demand, momentum. That work sits in AQAB territory; the literature is in JEAB and AQAB-focused outlets, and the analysis is theory-driven and quantitative rather than purely SCED Jarmolowicz et al. (2021).
5. You are asked to deliver "comprehensive ABA" rather than a single tactic. Use an ADDIE-based framework to assemble multiple evidence-based ABA procedures into one coordinated treatment package — what the funder is actually paying for (LaMarca et al., 2024).
6. The functional assessment requires a covert, low-frequency, or high-risk topography. Pair quantitative SCED with a structured qualitative interview — the qualitative-methods literature explicitly endorses this combination while preserving the seven dimensions of ABA (Crosland et al., 2025).
7. Cultural responsiveness or neurodivergent self-advocacy is a stated case priority. Specific moves: adopt neurodiversity-affirming language, audit deficit-based goals, include autistic voices in treatment planning, expand consent processes — all within ABA scope without sacrificing rigor (Mathur et al., 2024) (McComas et al., 2025).
8. A novel "branded" form of ABA is being marketed. Treat innovations as continuous improvements within behavior analysis rather than as new branded "ABAs"; proliferation of labels blurs ABA's boundary with the broader discipline Graber & Graber (2025).
9. The case lives at the BSP/service-delivery layer (consultation, supervision, training). Only 11% of BCBA programs offer consultation coursework; BCBAs increasingly need explicit indirect-service training (Mann et al., 2024).

Laypeople, journalists, regulators, and even many mental-health professionals routinely conflate ABA with the entire discipline. Five patterns worth correcting in interprofessional conversation:

Conflation 1: "ABA = behaviorism." Behaviorism is a philosophy of science; behavior analysis is the natural science operating within it; ABA is one branch. The conceptual-analysis branch handles the philosophy; ABA handles the application Morris & Peterson (2022).

Conflation 2: "ABA = Lovaas." Lovaas's work is one strand of the applied branch's history, not its definition; the historical-context literature explicitly argues against treating any single program as ABA's identity (McComas et al., 2025).

Conflation 3: "ABA = compliance training." The most damaging current misconception. Compliance-focused, normalizing intervention is one — often inappropriate — application; the science is content-neutral about goals and explicitly requires socially significant behavior change as the seventh dimension (Mathur et al., 2024) (McComas et al., 2025).

Conflation 4: "ABA = any behavioral intervention." The opposite mistake. ABA is what the BCBA scope-of-practice statute says it is; many behaviorally informed activities are practiced by other professions and are not ABA in the regulated sense (Morris et al., 2024).

Conflation 5: "BCBA and school psychologist do the same job." Increasingly common as training overlaps grow. The 2024 interprofessional survey documents rising redundancy on behavioral assessment skills, even as scope-of-practice law continues to differentiate them (Snyder et al., 2024).

• Using "behavior analyst" and "BCBA" interchangeably. Every BCBA is a behavior analyst; not every behavior analyst is a BCBA, and the credential authorizes the applied branch only (Morris et al., 2024).
• Treating "ABA" as synonymous with "autism intervention." ABA is one application of a broader science; reframing ABA as "the autism treatment" narrows the field and concentrates ableism risk (McComas et al., 2025) Heward et al. (2022).
• Equating quantitative SCED with the entirety of behavior-analytic methodology. Qualitative methods can fulfill behavior analysis's applied, technical, and generalizable dimensions — particularly for covert or low-frequency high-risk behaviors (Burney et al., 2024) (Crosland et al., 2025).
• Practicing across state lines without re-reading scope. Statutes vary on which activities the ABA license authorizes; the licensure analysis flags this as a documentation risk (Morris et al., 2024).
• Marketing or accepting branded sub-forms of ABA. Branded labels blur the boundary with the broader discipline; reform should be framed as continuous improvement, not a new sub-brand Graber & Graber (2025).
• Assuming PBS, PRT, PECS, or EIBI are "non-ABA alternatives." These are applications of behavior-analytic science; the position-paper literature recommends labeling them as ABA-rooted to preserve empirical grounding (Stalford et al., 2024).
• Confusing comprehensive ABA with a stack of isolated tactics. Comprehensive ABA is the integrated layer above individual procedures (LaMarca et al., 2024).
• Treating consultation as informal practice rather than a competency. Only 11% of BCBA programs offer dedicated consultation coursework (Mann et al., 2024).
• Allowing ableist language and deficit framing to drift into ABA goals. The applied dimension obligates practitioners to ask what is socially significant and to whom; ignoring this gap perpetuates implicit bias (McComas et al., 2025).

1. Memorize the four-branch architecture. EAB (basic science), conceptual analysis (philosophy/theory), ABA (socially significant application), and the practice of behavioral services. The science is the trunk; ABA is one branch Heward et al. (2022) Morris & Peterson (2022).
2. Anchor "applied" in 1968 and Baer et al.'s seven dimensions. JABA's founding codified socially significant behavior change as the boundary; state licensure law still operationalizes it Morris & Peterson (2022) (Morris et al., 2024).
3. Treat "behavior analyst" and "BCBA" as different categories. Conflating the two is the most common conceptual error in interprofessional conversations (Morris et al., 2024).
4. Read your state's scope-of-practice statute and reference it in documentation. Quoting exact scope language strengthens defensibility with funders and audits (Morris et al., 2024).
5. Recognize the journals as branch markers. JEAB asks EAB questions; JABA applied questions; Behavior Analysis in Practice service-delivery questions (Jessel et al., 2024) Jarmolowicz et al. (2021).
6. Push back on branded "ABAs" with continuous-improvement framing. Treat method updates as improvements within behavior analysis, not new branches Graber & Graber (2025).
7. Label PBS, EIBI, PECS, PRT as ABA-rooted in mixed-discipline settings. The ABA-prefix nomenclature signals empirical grounding (Stalford et al., 2024).
8. Use a structured scaffold — LADER — when correcting ABA misconceptions in real time (Coy et al., 2024).
9. Build comprehensive ABA, not a stack of tactics. Integrate 28+ evidence-based procedures via ADDIE; funders pay for the integration (LaMarca et al., 2024).
10. Pair SCED with structured qualitative methods for covert and high-risk topographies (Burney et al., 2024) (Crosland et al., 2025).
11. Reframe ABA inside autism services as one application, not the umbrella (McComas et al., 2025).
12. Audit goals and language for deficit-framing and ableism. Seven concrete neurodiversity-affirming moves are in the literature (McComas et al., 2025) (Mathur et al., 2024).
13. Treat consultation as a trained competency. Only 11% of BCBA programs offer dedicated consultation coursework (Mann et al., 2024).
14. Anticipate role overlap with school psychology. BCBA and school-psych training are nearly indistinguishable on behavioral skills; pre-empt with explicit role agreements (Snyder et al., 2024).

Primary research synthesized in this guide. DOIs link to the original source.

• Morris, C., Donovan, M. T., & Switzer, E. J. (2024). The scope of practice of applied behavior analysis in state licensure laws. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 17, 773–782. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-024-00915-3 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-024-00915-3
• Stalford, D., Graham, S., & Keenan, M. (2024). A discussion of positive behavior support and applied behavior analysis in the context of autism spectrum disorder in the UK and Ireland. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 17, 442–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-023-00905-x https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-023-00905-x
• McComas, J. J., Wilczynski, S., Cerda, M.-L., Beavis, H. S., Drossel, C., Sundberg, S., & Anderson, K. D., Jr. (2025). Ableism in applied behavior analysis: a beginner's guide to understanding and dismantling ableism in practice with autistic people. Behavior Analysis in Practice. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-025-01128-y https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-025-01128-y
• Crosland, K., Garcia, A., & Fuller, A. A. (2025). Embracing qualitative research for developing effective behavior analytic assessments and interventions within child welfare and human trafficking. Behavior Analysis in Practice. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-025-01131-3 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-025-01131-3
• Mathur, S. K., Renz, E., & Tarbox, J. (2024). Affirming neurodiversity within applied behavior analysis. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 17, 471–485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-024-00907-3 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-024-00907-3
• D’Agostino, S. R., & Pinkelman, S. E. (2025). Beyond social validity: embracing qualitative research in Behavior Analysis. Behavior Analysis in Practice. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-025-01104-6 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-025-01104-6
• McComas, J. J., Drossel, C. D., Sundberg, S., Cerda, M.-L., Wilczynski, S., & Beavis, H. S. (2025). Ableism in applied behavior analysis: historical context of services for autistic people. Behavior Analysis in Practice. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-025-01100-w https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-025-01100-w
• Heward, W. L., Critchfield, T. S., Reed, D. D., Detrich, R., & Kimball, J. W. (2022). ABA from A to Z: Behavior Science Applied to 350 Domains of Socially Significant Behavior. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 45(2), 327-359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-022-00336-z https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-022-00336-z
• Jarmolowicz, D. P., Greer, B. D., Killeen, P. R., & Huskinson, S. L. (2021). Applied Quantitative Analysis of Behavior: What It Is, and Why We Care—Introduction to the Special Section. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 44(4), 503-516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-021-00323-w https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-021-00323-w
• Toby, L. M., Hustyi, K. M., Hartley, B. K., Dubuque, M. L., Outlaw, E. E., & Logue, J. J. (2024). Development and preliminary validation of the Patient Outcome Planning Calculator (POP‑C): A tool for determining treatment dosage in applied behavior analysis. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 17, 601–614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-023-00861-6 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-023-00861-6
• Mejía-Buenaño, S. (2025). Beyond social validity: Embracing qualitative research in behavior analysis. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-025-01120-6 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-025-01120-6
• LaMarca, V. J., & LaMarca, J. M. (2024). Using the ADDIE model of instructional design to create programming for comprehensive ABA treatment. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 17, 371–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-024-00908-2 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-024-00908-2
• Burney, V., Arnold-Saritepe, A., & McCann, C. M. (2024). How can qualitative methods be applied to behavior analytic research: A discussion and suggestions for implementation. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 17, 431–441. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-024-00917-1 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-024-00917-1
• Graber, J. & Graber, A. (2025). Applied Behavior Analysis at a Crossroads: Reform, Branding, and the Future of Behavior Analysis. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 48(3), 577-588. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-025-00462-4 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-025-00462-4
• Togashi, K. (2025). Training in trial-based functional analysis via computer-based instruction and behavioral skills training. Behavior Analysis in Practice. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-025-01136-y https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-025-01136-y
• Morris, C. & Peterson, S. M. (2022). Teaching the History of Applied Behavior Analysis. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 45(4), 757-774. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-022-00354-x https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-022-00354-x
• Mann, A., Grimes, L. M., & Leichman, E. (2024). The need for greater training in consultation for behavior analysts. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 17, 514–522. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-023-00872-3 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-023-00872-3
• Townsend, D. B., Brothers, K. J., MacDuff, G. S., Freeman, A., Fry, C., Rozenblat, E., DeFeo, D., Budzinska, A., Ruta‑Sominka, I., Birkan, B., Hall, L. J., Krantz, P. J., & McClannahan, L. E. (2024). Alliance for Scientific Autism Intervention: System components and outcome data from high‑quality service delivery organizations. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 17, 565–580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-023-00898-7 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-023-00898-7
• Jessel, J., Fruchtman, T., Raghunauth‑Zaman, N., Leyman, A., Lemos, F. M., Costa Val, H., Howard, M., & Hanley, G. P. (2024). A two step validation of the performance‑based IISCA: A trauma‑ informed functional analysis model. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 17, 727–745. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-023-00792-2 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-023-00792-2
• Coy, J. N., Enders, O. G., & Kostewicz, D. E. (2024). Introducing LADER: A structured approach to effective professional interactions for behavior analysts. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 17, 759–772. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-023-00900-2 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-023-00900-2
• Diller, J. W., & Li, A. (2025). Incorporating qualitative data when training behavior analysts. Behavior Analysis in Practice. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-025-01124-2 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-025-01124-2
• Snyder, S. M., Huber, H., Hornsby, T., & Leventhal, B. (2024). Overlapping training and roles: An exploration of the state of interprofessional practice between behavior analysts and school psychologists. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 17, 880–892. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-023-00904-y https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-023-00904-y