By Matt Harrington, BCBA · Behaviorist Book Club · Research-backed answers for behavior analysts
The BACB Ethics Code (2022) establishes multiple standards that depend on practitioners staying current with research. Code 2.01 (Providing Effective Treatment) requires evidence-based practice, which requires knowledge of the current evidence. Code 1.06 (Maintaining Competence) requires ongoing professional development that includes staying current with advances in the field. Code 2.09 (Using Effective and Appropriate Assessments) requires the use of evidence-based assessment methods. Without the ability to access and review current literature, practitioners cannot fully meet these ethical obligations. Literature search skills are therefore a practical prerequisite for ethical practice.
The most commonly reported barriers include loss of institutional database access after leaving graduate programs, the high cost of individual journal subscriptions or per-article fees, time constraints in busy clinical schedules, overwhelming volume of published research that makes identifying relevant articles difficult, unfamiliarity with search strategies and databases, and uncertainty about how to evaluate the quality and relevance of articles found. These barriers are cumulative and can create a cycle where practitioners gradually disengage from the literature, making it progressively harder to re-engage as their search skills and awareness of current research atrophy.
Several options exist for cost-effective literature access. Google Scholar often links to freely available versions of articles. PubMed Central provides free access to articles funded by the National Institutes of Health. Some behavior-analytic journals offer open access to certain content or after an embargo period. Authors may post pre-print or post-print versions on personal websites or institutional repositories. Professional organization membership often includes journal access. Interlibrary loan services through public and university libraries can provide articles at no cost. ResearchGate and similar platforms sometimes host author-uploaded copies of published work.
Effective search queries use specific behavioral terminology combined with Boolean operators. Start with your primary topic using established behavioral terms rather than colloquial language. Use AND to combine concepts, such as functional analysis AND self-injury. Use OR to include synonyms, such as reinforcement OR reward. Use quotation marks for exact phrases, such as discrete trial training. Use truncation, such as behavio* to capture both behavior and behaviour. Start broad and narrow progressively by adding additional terms. Use database-specific filters for date range, publication type, and age group to refine results further.
Citation tracking involves using a known relevant article to find related research in two directions. Backward tracking means reviewing the reference list of a relevant article to identify the earlier studies it cited, which are likely to be foundational works in the area. Forward tracking means using tools like Google Scholar's Cited By feature to find articles published after your known article that cited it, which are likely to be more recent studies on the same topic. This approach is particularly efficient because it leverages the bibliographic connections that researchers have already established, leading you to the most relevant literature through a chain of scholarly relationships.
There is no universal standard, but even a modest investment of fifteen to thirty minutes per week can significantly improve your connection with the evidence base. The key is consistency rather than volume. A practitioner who spends twenty minutes every week scanning recent publications and occasionally reading a full article relevant to their current clinical challenges will stay far more current than one who attempts marathon literature review sessions that happen infrequently. Use automated tools like Google Scholar alerts and journal table-of-contents emails to make the most of limited time by directing your attention to the most relevant new publications.
Evaluate quality by examining the research design, looking for experimental control such as single-case experimental designs with replication, adequate baseline stability, clear operational definitions of dependent and independent variables, measures of interobserver agreement and procedural fidelity, and appropriate visual or statistical analysis. Evaluate relevance by considering whether the participants, settings, and target behaviors are similar to your clinical context. Published in a peer-reviewed journal is a baseline quality indicator but not sufficient by itself. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses provide synthesized evidence that can be particularly useful for clinical decision-making.
The most relevant databases include PsycINFO, which covers psychology and behavioral science literature comprehensively, PubMed for medically oriented behavioral research, and Google Scholar for broad cross-disciplinary coverage. The Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis and related journals like Behavior Analysis in Practice, Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, and Perspectives on Behavior Science are the core behavior-analytic publications. Education databases like ERIC are relevant for school-based behavioral research. For systematic reviews, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews may include relevant behavioral interventions. Using multiple databases increases the likelihood of finding all relevant literature on a topic.
Incorporate literature searches into your supervision activities by assigning supervisees to find and present relevant articles on topics related to their caseloads, by searching for articles together during supervision sessions to model efficient search behavior, and by using published research as the basis for clinical discussions and decision-making. When supervisees bring clinical questions to supervision, guide them through the process of searching the literature rather than simply providing the answer from your own knowledge. This approach develops their literature search skills, promotes evidence-based practice habits, and enhances the quality of supervisory discussions.
Conflicting evidence is common and should be approached systematically rather than dismissed. First, evaluate the methodological quality of the conflicting studies, as higher-quality studies should carry more weight. Second, consider whether the studies differed in participant characteristics, settings, or procedural details that might account for different results. Third, look for systematic reviews or meta-analyses that have synthesized the evidence and addressed the inconsistencies. Fourth, consult with colleagues who have expertise in the area. Finally, use your clinical judgment to determine which evidence is most relevant to your specific client and context. Code 2.01 supports the integration of research evidence with clinical expertise in making treatment decisions.
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.
Ready to go deeper? This course covers this topic with structured learning objectives and CEU credit.
Efficiently Searching the Academic Literature — CEUniverse · 2.5 BACB Ethics CEUs · $0
Take This Course →2.5 BACB Ethics CEUs · $0 · CEUniverse
Research-backed educational guide with practice recommendations
Side-by-side comparison with clinical decision framework
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.