This comparison draws in part from “The Ethics of Inaction: Why NOT Using AI Could Violate Our Ethics Code” by Adam Ventura, PhD BCBA (BehaviorLive), and extends it with peer-reviewed research from our library of 27,900+ ABA research articles. The decision framework, BACB ethics code references, and cross-links below are synthesized by Behaviorist Book Club.
View the original presentation →One of the most consequential decisions a behavior analyst makes is not just what intervention to use, but how to approach the clinical question in the first place. For the ethics of inaction: why not using ai could violate our ethics code, the difference between an evidence-based, individualized approach and a traditional, protocol-driven one can significantly impact outcomes.
This guide lays out the key factors side by side to support your clinical decision-making.
| Factor | Evidence-Based Approach | Traditional Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Client Welfare (Core Principle 1) | AI-engaged practice actively evaluates tools that could improve service quality, efficiency, and access, pursuing the affirmative obligation to benefit those served | AI-avoidant practice prioritizes avoiding potential AI-related harms but may forego genuine improvements in service quality and access that would benefit clients |
| Evidence-Based Practice (Code 2.01) | Evaluates AI applications against available evidence and adopts those with demonstrated benefits, consistent with the obligation to use the best available evidence | May be inconsistent with evidence-based practice obligations if avoidance is based on unfamiliarity rather than evidence that specific tools are ineffective or harmful |
| Competence (Core Principle 4) | Develops AI literacy as part of staying current with professional developments, including understanding of capabilities, limitations, and appropriate use | May create a competence gap as AI becomes increasingly integrated into healthcare and human services, potentially limiting the practitioner's effectiveness over time |
| Risk Management | Manages AI-related risks through specific safeguards — compliant platforms, review procedures, training, and documentation — accepting managed risk in exchange for genuine benefits | Avoids AI-related risks entirely but accepts the opportunity costs of foregone efficiency, quality, and access improvements |
| Service Accessibility | AI-assisted efficiency may expand practitioner capacity, reduce wait times, and lower service costs, potentially improving access for underserved populations | Maintaining traditional workflows may limit practitioner capacity and maintain existing barriers to service access |
| Professional Sustainability | AI assistance with documentation and administrative tasks may reduce practitioner burnout and improve job satisfaction, supporting workforce retention | Continued reliance on fully manual processes maintains the documentation burden that contributes significantly to practitioner burnout in ABA |
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.
Use this framework when approaching the ethics of inaction: why not using ai could violate our ethics code in your practice:
Does the data support a need for intervention? Is there a meaningful impact on the individual's quality of life, safety, or access to reinforcement?
YES → Proceed to assessment NO → Document reasoning, monitor
A functional assessment should guide intervention selection. Avoid defaulting to standard protocols without individual analysis. Consider environmental variables, setting events, and private events.
YES → Select evidence-based approach matched to function NO → Complete assessment first
Goals should be co-developed. Assent and informed consent are ethical requirements. The individual's preferences and values matter in selecting both goals and methods.
YES → Proceed with collaborative plan NO → Engage in shared decision-making
This course covers the clinical and ethical dimensions in detail with structured learning objectives and CEU credit.
The Ethics of Inaction: Why NOT Using AI Could Violate Our Ethics Code — Adam Ventura · 1 BACB Ethics CEUs · $20
Take This Course →We extended this decision guide with research from our library — dig into the peer-reviewed studies behind each approach, in plain-English summaries written for BCBAs.
258 research articles with practitioner takeaways
239 research articles with practitioner takeaways
239 research articles with practitioner takeaways
1 BACB Ethics CEUs · $20 · BehaviorLive
Research-backed educational guide
Research-backed answers for behavior analysts
You earn CEUs from a dozen different places. Upload any certificate — from here, your employer, conferences, wherever — and always know exactly where you stand. Learning, Ethics, Supervision, all handled.
No credit card required. Cancel anytime.
All behavior-analytic intervention is individualized. The information on this page is for educational purposes and does not constitute clinical advice. Treatment decisions should be informed by the best available published research, individualized assessment, and obtained with the informed consent of the client or their legal guardian. Behavior analysts are responsible for practicing within the boundaries of their competence and adhering to the BACB Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts.