By Matt Harrington, BCBA · Behaviorist Book Club · Research-backed answers for behavior analysts
Multidisciplinary collaboration involves professionals from different disciplines working on the same case independently — each conducts their own assessment and implements their own interventions with minimal coordination. Interdisciplinary collaboration involves greater information sharing and joint goal-setting, but each professional still operates primarily within their disciplinary domain. Interprofessional collaboration represents the deepest integration, where professionals develop shared frameworks, co-design interventions, and implement strategies that cross disciplinary boundaries. The distinctions matter because many behavior analysts believe they are collaborating effectively when they are actually practicing multidisciplinary parallel work — reading others' reports but not genuinely integrating other perspectives into their clinical reasoning.
Disciplinary centrism is the implicit or explicit belief that one's own professional discipline is superior to or more scientifically rigorous than others. In behavior analysis, this often manifests as dismissing recommendations from occupational therapists, speech-language pathologists, or educators because they are based on different theoretical frameworks or research methodologies. Behavior analysts may justify this by citing the strong evidence base for ABA, but this reasoning conflates having a good evidence base with having a sufficient evidence base for addressing all aspects of a client's needs. Disciplinary centrism damages collaborative relationships, limits the comprehensiveness of treatment planning, and ultimately harms clients who need integrated support from multiple professional perspectives.
Yes. Code 2.10 requires behavior analysts to collaborate with other professionals who serve their clients, to familiarize themselves with other professionals' relevant recommendations, and to consider how their services can be coordinated with other services the client receives. This is not a suggestion — it is an ethical requirement. Additionally, Code 1.07 on cultural responsiveness implies that practitioners should be able to communicate effectively across professional cultures, and Code 2.14 on social validity supports collaboration because families consistently prefer coordinated care. A behavior analyst who systematically ignores or dismisses input from other disciplines may be failing to meet these ethical standards.
The responsibility for effective communication runs both ways, but behavior analysts can take the lead by translating their concepts into accessible language. Instead of describing an intervention in terms of extinction schedules and differential reinforcement, explain what you learned about the behavior's purpose and how your approach addresses it. Share your data in visual formats that non-behavioral professionals can interpret. Ask questions about other professionals' approaches that demonstrate genuine interest rather than skepticism. Over time, these communication adaptations build trust and create opportunities for other professionals to become curious about behavioral perspectives. Many collaborative breakdowns occur not because other professionals reject behavioral science but because behavior analysts present it in ways that are alienating or dismissive of other viewpoints.
Approach the disagreement as a clinical discussion rather than a disciplinary competition. Start by seeking to understand the other professional's reasoning — what assessment data supports their recommendation, what outcomes they are targeting, and what their experience suggests about the approach's effectiveness. Share your own perspective using the same framework — what your data show, what behavioral principles predict, and what concerns you have about the proposed approach. If genuine disagreement remains after this exchange, propose a data-based resolution: agree on measurable outcomes, implement both approaches in a coordinated manner, and evaluate results. This approach respects both professionals' expertise while keeping the focus on client outcomes rather than disciplinary pride.
Neurodiverse individuals typically present with complex, interconnected needs that span multiple professional domains. A child with autism may have behavioral, communicative, sensory, motor, educational, social, and medical needs that all interact with each other. When professionals collaborate effectively, they produce more comprehensive assessments that capture these interactions, more cohesive intervention plans that address multiple needs simultaneously, and more consistent implementation across settings and providers. For families, effective collaboration reduces the burden of coordinating between providers, eliminates conflicting recommendations, and creates a unified support system. Research across healthcare disciplines consistently shows that interprofessional collaboration improves outcomes for individuals with complex needs.
This is a significant gap in behavior analysis training that reflects the field's historical development in relative isolation from other healthcare and education disciplines. The BACB task list emphasizes behavioral assessment, intervention design, and supervision skills, with limited attention to interprofessional competencies. Graduate programs are designed around the task list, so interprofessional training receives minimal curricular time. Some programs have begun to address this gap by including interprofessional learning experiences or courses on professional communication, but these remain the exception rather than the norm. Lisa Gurdin's course highlights this training gap as a field-level problem that needs attention from program developers, the BACB, and individual practitioners who must seek these skills independently.
Absolutely. Behavior analysts can apply their knowledge of reinforcement, shaping, and stimulus control to their own collaborative behavior. Reinforcement principles suggest that collaborative efforts need to produce contact with reinforcing outcomes — shared successes, positive feedback from families, and genuine professional growth — to be maintained. Shaping principles suggest that building collaborative skills is a gradual process that should be reinforced at each successive approximation. Stimulus control principles help explain why collaborative behavior may not generalize from team meetings to other contexts without explicit programming. By analyzing their own collaborative behavior functionally, behavior analysts can design personal professional development plans that systematically build and maintain effective interprofessional skills.
It is true that collaboration requires additional time for communication, coordination, and joint decision-making. However, this upfront investment typically reduces total time spent by preventing conflicting interventions, addressing missed factors that would otherwise lead to intervention failure, and reducing the need for repeated assessment cycles when initial interventions do not work. Frame the time invested in collaboration as an efficiency measure rather than an added burden. Practically, establish regular communication routines — brief weekly updates, shared documentation platforms, or periodic team check-ins — that make collaboration systematic rather than ad hoc. When collaboration is built into your routine, it becomes less time-intensive and more sustainable.
Contact one professional from a different discipline on one of your clients' teams and schedule a brief conversation — even fifteen minutes — to discuss the client's progress from both of your perspectives. Come to the conversation with genuine curiosity rather than an agenda. Ask what they have observed, what is working from their perspective, and what they think would help the client most. Share your behavioral data and explain your current approach in accessible language. This single conversation often reveals information that improves your clinical understanding and begins building a collaborative relationship that benefits the client. The key is to initiate — many other professionals are as interested in collaboration as you are but are waiting for someone to take the first step.
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.
Stronger Together: Elevating Outcomes through Interprofessional Collaboration — Lisa Gurdin · 1.5 BACB Ethics CEUs · $0
Take This Course →1.5 BACB Ethics CEUs · $0 · BehaviorLive
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.