These answers draw in part from “Workshop: Research in practice: How individuals and organizations can overcome barriers and engage research in practice” by Joe Ricciardi, PsyD, BCBA-D, CBIST (BehaviorLive), and extend it with peer-reviewed research from our library of 27,900+ ABA research articles. Clinical framing, BACB ethics code references, and cross-links below are synthesized by Behaviorist Book Club.
View the original presentation →The most frequently reported barriers include lack of time due to caseload demands, absence of organizational infrastructure and support for research activity, limited access to research mentorship, uncertainty about methodology and study design, ethical complexities of conducting research with clinical populations, and lack of familiarity with the dissemination process. These barriers are structural rather than motivational, meaning most practitioners want to conduct research but lack the systems and resources to do so effectively.
Pay attention to clinical puzzles that recur across cases: interventions that work unexpectedly well or poorly, client characteristics that seem to predict treatment response, procedural variations that appear to affect outcomes, or assessment methods that produce surprising results. Frame these observations as testable questions by specifying what you would compare, what you would measure, and in what population. Consult the existing literature to determine whether the question has already been answered or whether a gap exists that your practice setting could help fill.
Single-subject experimental designs, including reversal designs, multiple baseline designs, and alternating treatments designs, are the most practical because they are already conceptually familiar to behavior analysts and can be implemented within routine clinical services. Case series and retrospective analyses of existing clinical data are also feasible and can generate valuable descriptive findings. Group designs are possible but typically require larger sample sizes and more complex logistics than most individual practice settings can support.
If the findings will be disseminated beyond internal organizational use, IRB review is typically required and always recommended. Options include partnering with a local university whose IRB can review your protocol, using a commercial IRB service, or establishing your own organizational review board if the scale of research activity justifies it. Even for studies that might qualify as quality improvement rather than research, obtaining ethical review protects both participants and the organization and strengthens the credibility of the findings.
Establish clear protocols that prioritize clinical needs over research requirements in all situations. Never delay an indicated treatment modification because the research design calls for continued baseline. Have someone other than the primary clinician obtain informed consent for research participation when possible. Maintain separate documentation for clinical and research purposes. Discuss potential conflicts of interest with a supervisor or colleague before beginning the study. If at any point clinical and research needs conflict, the clinical obligation prevails without exception.
Protected time for research activities is the single most important support because it addresses the primary barrier of competing caseload demands. Research mentorship from experienced researchers, whether internal or through university partnerships, helps practitioners avoid methodological pitfalls. Institutional support for IRB review streamlines the ethical approval process. A structured pipeline from question identification through dissemination gives practitioners a clear pathway forward. Recognition and celebration of research contributions reinforces engagement.
State and regional ABA conferences are excellent starting points because they are often more welcoming of practice-based presentations and provide constructive feedback environments. Poster presentations have lower barriers than paper presentations for first-time presenters. For publication, consider practice-oriented journals that value applied contributions and may have less competitive acceptance rates than the flagship research journals. Behavior Analysis in Practice, for example, explicitly seeks applied contributions from practitioners.
Consent must clearly distinguish between clinical services, which continue regardless of research participation, and research activities, which are voluntary. Ideally, someone other than the primary clinician obtains consent to reduce perceived pressure. Consent documents should explain what research data will be collected, how it differs from routine clinical data, what will happen to the data, and the participant's right to withdraw from research without any effect on services. Provide time for questions and offer a follow-up conversation rather than expecting an immediate decision.
Retrospective analysis of existing clinical data can produce valuable research findings, particularly for questions about treatment effectiveness across populations, predictors of treatment response, or organizational quality indicators. However, the data must have been collected with sufficient rigor, and the analysis must be conducted with appropriate methodological standards. IRB review is still recommended, even though the data already exist, particularly if individual participants could potentially be identified. The strength of retrospective analysis is efficiency; the limitation is that you cannot control for variables that were not measured during data collection.
The primary unique concerns include the dual clinician-researcher role creating potential conflicts of interest, the power dynamic between a clinician requesting research participation and a client who depends on that clinician for services, the challenge of maintaining clinical flexibility while adhering to research protocols, and ensuring that client confidentiality is maintained when clinical records are used for research purposes. These concerns are manageable with appropriate safeguards but must be addressed proactively during study design rather than retroactively during data collection.
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.
Workshop: Research in practice: How individuals and organizations can overcome barriers and engage research in practice — Joe Ricciardi · 1.5 BACB Ethics CEUs · $20
Take This Course →We extended these answers with research from our library — dig into the peer-reviewed studies behind the topic, in plain-English summaries written for BCBAs.
279 research articles with practitioner takeaways
258 research articles with practitioner takeaways
239 research articles with practitioner takeaways
1.5 BACB Ethics CEUs · $20 · BehaviorLive
Research-backed educational guide with practice recommendations
Side-by-side comparison with clinical decision framework
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.