This comparison draws in part from “You Can't Always Get What You Want: Teaching Supervisees to Identify and Accept Imperfect Solutions to Complex Ethical Challenges” by Barbara Kaminski, Ph.D., BCBA-D (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 →Ethics training in behavior analysis takes different forms depending on the goals, format, and assumptions of the training designer. The most common approach builds code knowledge — ensuring that supervisees can identify the relevant Ethics Code sections for presented scenarios, understand the rationale behind key provisions, and recognize ethical violations when they see them. A less common but increasingly important approach focuses on decision-making competency — ensuring that supervisees can reason through novel ethical situations, generate and evaluate options, and make defensible decisions even when the situation does not fit cleanly into the scenarios covered in training.
Kaminski's course argues that knowledge-focused ethics training, while necessary, is insufficient. It prepares supervisees for a version of ethical practice that is less complex than the one they will actually encounter. This comparison examines the two approaches along key dimensions to support supervisors in designing ethics training that prepares supervisees for actual practice.
| Factor | Evidence-Based Approach | Traditional Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Primary training target | Code knowledge: Identification of applicable code sections, understanding of code provisions, recognition of violations | Decision-making competency: Reasoning processes for novel situations, option generation and evaluation, defensible decision-making under uncertainty |
| Assessment method | Code knowledge: Written knowledge tests, code identification exercises, scenario quizzes with clear correct answers | Decision-making competency: Performance-based scenarios with genuine complexity, verbal reasoning demonstration, documentation review |
| Preparation for real-world dilemmas | Code knowledge: Effective for situations that map clearly onto code provisions; limited for novel situations, competing obligations, or resource-constrained contexts | Decision-making competency: Directly prepares for the variability and complexity of real ethical dilemmas, including situations where ideal solutions are unavailable |
| Supervisory time requirements | Code knowledge: Relatively efficient — can be delivered didactically, assessed quickly, documented with standard testing formats | Decision-making competency: Requires case-based discussion, reasoning demonstration, feedback, and iteration across multiple supervisory sessions |
| Alignment with Task List E.2 | Code knowledge: Addresses knowledge and recognition components of E.2 but may not develop the active application and decision-making competencies the task list specifies | Decision-making competency: Directly addresses the demonstration-of-decision-making components of E.2 that require active competency, not just knowledge |
| Value for experienced practitioners | Code knowledge: Diminishing returns for experienced practitioners who have already internalized the code — refresher value but limited growth | Decision-making competency: High value for practitioners at all levels, as novel dilemmas arise throughout a career and reasoning quality can continue to develop |
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 you can't always get what you want: teaching supervisees to identify and accept imperfect solutions to complex ethical challenges 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.
You Can't Always Get What You Want: Teaching Supervisees to Identify and Accept Imperfect Solutions to Complex Ethical Challenges — Barbara Kaminski · 1 BACB Supervision 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.
279 research articles with practitioner takeaways
252 research articles with practitioner takeaways
233 research articles with practitioner takeaways
1 BACB Supervision 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.