By Matt Harrington, BCBA · Behaviorist Book Club · Research-backed answers for behavior analysts
BACB Ethics Code 2.09 requires that behavior analysts recommend and use scientifically supported treatment procedures. When evidence-based treatments are not available, the behavior analyst must describe why other treatments are being considered, their potential risks, and the level of evidence supporting them. Practitioners are also required to inform clients and caregivers when proposed treatments are not empirically supported or may be harmful. This obligation applies whether the BCBA is proposing a treatment or evaluating one proposed by another team member.
The distinction between a fad treatment and an emerging evidence-based practice is degree of evidence relative to the level of adoption and the claims being made. An emerging practice may have preliminary single-case data, a plausible mechanism of action grounded in established science, and claims proportionate to the available evidence. A fad treatment typically gains widespread adoption ahead of the evidence, may rely on anecdotal reports rather than controlled studies, and often carries claims that exceed what the data support. BCBAs should apply systematic evidence evaluation rather than relying on popularity as a proxy for efficacy.
The BCBA should first gather and review the available evidence for the proposed treatment, then communicate concerns directly and respectfully to the proposing team member. This conversation should focus on client welfare and evidence standards rather than disciplinary authority. If the concern is not addressed, the BCBA should document the concern in writing and escalate within the appropriate organizational or supervisory structure. Under Ethics Code 1.04, behavior analysts are obligated to advocate for their clients and should not remain silent about treatments they have good reason to believe are ineffective or harmful.
Research suggests that behavior analysts do implement practices with limited empirical support, which can result from insufficient training in evaluating evidence hierarchies, exposure to training programs that do not clearly differentiate established from unproven methods, institutional or client pressure to adopt novel approaches, or the appeal of techniques that align with popular cultural narratives about autism treatment. BCBAs must regularly audit their own practice against current evidence standards and seek peer consultation or supervision when uncertain about the evidence base for a procedure they are implementing.
Families who have pursued or are considering fad treatments deserve respectful, transparent, and accessible communication about the evidence base. BCBAs should acknowledge the family's love and commitment to their child, explain the concept of evidence-based practice in plain language, describe what the evidence shows (or does not show) for the proposed treatment, and offer specific evidence-based alternatives. The goal is informed decision-making, not compliance. Ethics Code 2.09 requires providing this information; it also requires doing so in a way that respects the family's autonomy and supports their ability to make genuinely informed choices.
Opportunity cost refers to the value of the evidence-based intervention that cannot occur because resources — time, funding, intervention hours — are directed to an unproven treatment. Even if a fad treatment is entirely benign in itself, every hour spent implementing it is an hour not spent on an intervention with a demonstrated evidence base. For children during sensitive developmental periods, these lost hours carry real clinical significance. BCBAs should consider opportunity cost as part of their ethical analysis when evaluating whether to raise concerns about an unproven treatment being implemented alongside or instead of evidence-based services.
Organizational-level advocacy involves working within the systems and policies that shape clinical practice. BCBAs can propose treatment evaluation protocols that require evidence review before new approaches are added to the service menu, facilitate journal clubs or training on evaluating research quality, engage administrators and clinical directors in conversations about the organization's stance on evidence-based practice, and contribute to documentation practices that track which treatments are being used and on what evidential basis. These systemic efforts reduce the likelihood that individual practitioners will face isolated pressure to implement fad treatments without institutional support for their concerns.
Supervision is a critical venue for developing and maintaining evidence-based practice competencies. Under BACB supervision standards and Ethics Code 5.04, supervisors are responsible for ensuring supervisees implement procedures with fidelity to established evidence-based methods. This includes actively discussing evidence evaluation skills, creating opportunities for supervisees to practice raising concerns about unproven treatments, and modeling appropriate responses when fad treatments are encountered on teams. Supervisors who themselves implement fad treatments model a standard of practice that undermines supervisees' development of evidence-based clinical judgment.
A structured evaluation begins with a literature search in peer-reviewed databases for controlled studies — single-case research designs with strong internal validity or randomized controlled trials — involving participants similar to your client. You should assess the quality of methodology, the consistency of findings across independent research teams, and whether the proposed mechanism of action is consistent with established behavioral science. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses provide a synthesized view but should be evaluated for the quality of the included studies. The National Autism Center's National Standards Project and similar resources provide structured evidence ratings for autism intervention approaches.
Ethics Code 1.04 requires behavior analysts to be truthful and to advocate for their clients even when doing so is professionally or socially uncomfortable. Raising concerns about fad treatments in interdisciplinary settings requires professional courage — the willingness to hold an unpopular position, to risk discomfort in a professional relationship, and to persist in advocacy when initial concerns are dismissed. Professional courage is not recklessness; it is calibrated, evidence-based advocacy delivered with respect and compassion. Developing this competency is as important as developing technical clinical skills for behavior analysts working in interdisciplinary contexts.
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.
The Crossroads Part 2 | Supervision | 1 Hour — Autism Partnership Foundation · 1 BACB General CEUs · $0
Take This Course →1 BACB General CEUs · $0 · Autism Partnership Foundation
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.