By Matt Harrington, BCBA · Behaviorist Book Club · April 2026 · 12 min read

Maintaining Professional Relationships in Interdisciplinary Settings: Navigating Nonbehavioral Treatment Recommendations

Overview & Clinical Significance

The growth of applied behavior analysis as a treatment for individuals with autism has brought behavior analysts into increasingly frequent contact with professionals from other disciplines, including speech-language pathologists, occupational therapists, psychologists, psychiatrists, educators, and physicians. This interdisciplinary landscape creates both opportunities and challenges. This course, based on work by Brodhead (2015), addresses a particularly sensitive challenge: how behavior analysts should respond when colleagues from other disciplines recommend treatments that are not supported by behavioral evidence or that may conflict with behavior-analytic principles.

Families of individuals with autism are often receiving services from multiple providers simultaneously. When these providers disagree about treatment approaches, families are placed in an untenable position, caught between professionals who may each believe their approach is best. The resulting confusion can lead to fragmented treatment, inconsistent implementation, and outcomes that are worse than what any single coherent approach might achieve.

For behavior analysts, the challenge is twofold. First, there is a scientific and ethical obligation to advocate for evidence-based treatment. Behavior analysts are trained to rely on empirical evidence and to be skeptical of treatments that lack such evidence. When a colleague recommends a treatment that has no empirical support, or that has been shown to be ineffective, the behavior analyst faces a tension between their obligation to the client and their need to maintain a productive professional relationship.

Second, there is a practical reality that behavior analysts cannot serve their clients effectively in isolation. Many of the clients behavior analysts serve require support from multiple disciplines, and the quality of interprofessional collaboration directly affects client outcomes. A behavior analyst who alienates colleagues from other disciplines, even while being scientifically correct, may ultimately harm the client by disrupting the collaborative network that supports comprehensive care.

This course provides strategies for navigating this tension, helping behavior analysts maintain their commitment to evidence-based practice while preserving the professional relationships that are essential for comprehensive client care. The strategies are grounded in behavioral principles and in the practical realities of interdisciplinary work in clinical, educational, and home-based settings.

The topic is particularly relevant as behavior analysis continues to integrate into settings where it is the newer discipline. In schools, hospitals, and multidisciplinary clinics, behavior analysts often need to establish credibility and build relationships with professionals who may have limited understanding of ABA or who may hold negative perceptions based on outdated information. How behavior analysts handle disagreements about treatment can either reinforce or undermine these perceptions.

Background & Context

The history of applied behavior analysis includes periods of significant tension with other disciplines, particularly in the treatment of autism. As ABA gained empirical support and broader recognition, it also attracted criticism from some quarters for being perceived as rigid, reductionistic, or dismissive of other therapeutic approaches. These perceptions, whether accurate or not, have shaped the interdisciplinary landscape in which behavior analysts currently operate.

Brodhead (2015) addressed this landscape by acknowledging that behavior analysts will inevitably encounter recommendations for treatments that fall outside the behavioral tradition. These recommendations may range from well-established practices in other disciplines (such as sensory integration therapy in occupational therapy) to treatments with little or no empirical support (such as certain biomedical interventions). The behavior analyst's response to these recommendations affects not only the immediate clinical situation but also the broader reputation and effectiveness of the profession.

The interdisciplinary context is further complicated by differences in epistemological frameworks across disciplines. Behavior analysis emphasizes single-subject experimental design and direct measurement of behavior as the standard of evidence. Other disciplines may rely more heavily on group-design research, clinical consensus, theoretical rationale, or qualitative evidence. These differences in what counts as evidence can create misunderstandings and conflicts that go beyond disagreements about specific treatments.

In educational settings, the interdisciplinary dynamic is shaped by legal frameworks such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which mandates that individualized education programs be developed by multidisciplinary teams. Behavior analysts serving on these teams must navigate the requirement for collaborative decision-making while maintaining their professional obligation to advocate for evidence-based practices.

In clinical settings, the dynamic is shaped by insurance requirements, organizational hierarchies, and referral networks. A behavior analyst who is perceived as difficult to work with may find that referrals dry up, that collaboration becomes strained, and that ultimately the clients who need behavioral services are less likely to receive them.

The research literature on interprofessional collaboration highlights several factors that contribute to effective teamwork: mutual respect, understanding of each discipline's scope of practice, clear communication, shared goals, and mechanisms for resolving disagreements. Brodhead's (2015) strategies align with this literature by providing behavior analysts with specific approaches for addressing treatment disagreements in ways that preserve these collaborative elements.

It is also important to acknowledge that behavior analysis is not always right and other disciplines are not always wrong. Behavior analysts can learn from colleagues in other disciplines, and some treatments that were initially dismissed by behavior analysts have subsequently gained empirical support. An attitude of genuine intellectual humility, combined with a commitment to evidence, serves the profession and its clients better than an adversarial stance.

Clinical Implications

The clinical implications of this topic are immediate and practical for any behavior analyst working as part of a multidisciplinary team or in a setting where clients receive services from multiple providers. Developing effective strategies for navigating treatment disagreements is not a soft skill but a clinical competency that directly affects client outcomes.

The first clinical implication is the importance of establishing collaborative relationships before disagreements arise. Behavior analysts who invest time in building rapport with colleagues from other disciplines, learning about their approaches, and demonstrating respect for their expertise create a relational context in which disagreements can be navigated more productively. When a disagreement occurs within an established collaborative relationship, it is more likely to be resolved through dialogue than through confrontation.

The second implication involves how behavior analysts communicate their concerns about nonbehavioral treatment recommendations. Rather than dismissing a recommended treatment outright, behavior analysts can ask questions that invite the recommending professional to articulate the evidence base for their recommendation. This approach serves multiple purposes: it demonstrates respect for the colleague's expertise, it provides information that may reveal that the recommendation has more support than initially assumed, and it creates an opportunity for shared problem-solving.

The third implication is the importance of framing discussions in terms of the client's needs rather than disciplinary allegiance. When a behavior analyst says that a particular treatment is not supported by behavioral research, this can be perceived as a territorial claim. When the same practitioner says that they want to ensure the client receives treatments that are most likely to produce meaningful outcomes, the conversation shifts to shared goals. This reframing is not manipulative but reflects the genuine purpose of the discussion.

The fourth implication involves knowing when and how to share information about the evidence base for behavior-analytic treatments. Many professionals from other disciplines have limited exposure to the ABA literature and may not understand the strength of the evidence supporting behavioral interventions. Behavior analysts can serve as educators in these contexts, sharing relevant research in accessible language without being condescending. Providing colleagues with readable summaries of research evidence can be more effective than citing journal articles that may not be relevant to their clinical decision-making framework.

The fifth implication is the recognition that not every disagreement needs to be resolved in the behavior analyst's favor. In some cases, a treatment recommendation from another discipline may be relatively benign, may address needs outside the behavior analyst's scope, or may be important to the family for reasons that go beyond empirical evidence. The behavior analyst must weigh the potential harm of the recommended treatment against the potential harm of damaging a collaborative relationship or alienating a family.

The sixth implication involves documenting disagreements and the rationale for treatment decisions. When a behavior analyst disagrees with a treatment recommendation from another professional, documenting the basis for the disagreement, the evidence considered, and the decision reached protects both the practitioner and the client. This documentation should be factual, specific, and free of derogatory language about the recommending professional or their discipline.

Ethical Considerations

Navigating nonbehavioral treatment recommendations in interdisciplinary settings involves multiple ethical obligations that sometimes pull in different directions. The BACB Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts (2022) provides guidance for resolving these tensions, though the application requires careful judgment.

Code 2.01 (Providing Effective Treatment) establishes the foundational obligation to advocate for treatments that are supported by evidence. When a behavior analyst is aware that a recommended treatment lacks empirical support or has been shown to be ineffective, this code creates a professional obligation to raise concerns. However, this obligation must be balanced against the practical realities of interdisciplinary collaboration and the recognition that the behavior analyst's scope of competence does not extend to evaluating treatments in other disciplines.

Code 2.02 (Timeliness) requires that behavior analysts provide services in a timely manner. In interdisciplinary settings, protracted disagreements about treatment approaches can delay the implementation of effective interventions. The ethical behavior analyst works to resolve disagreements efficiently while ensuring that the client's access to effective treatment is not compromised by interprofessional conflict.

Code 1.07 (Cultural Responsiveness and Diversity) is relevant because families' preferences for particular treatments may be influenced by cultural factors. Some families may place high value on treatments recommended by medical professionals, traditional healers, or community advisors. The behavior analyst must balance their obligation to advocate for evidence-based treatment with respect for the family's cultural context and autonomous decision-making.

Code 2.09 (Involving Clients and Stakeholders) requires behavior analysts to involve clients and stakeholders in treatment planning. In the context of interdisciplinary disagreements, this means ensuring that families have access to accurate information about the evidence base for different treatments so they can make informed decisions. The behavior analyst should present information clearly and honestly without being dismissive of other approaches or pressuring families to reject treatments recommended by other providers.

Code 1.11 (Avoiding Conflicts of Interest) is relevant when behavior analysts' advocacy for behavioral treatments might be perceived as driven by professional self-interest rather than client welfare. Being transparent about the basis for treatment recommendations and acknowledging the limits of one's own expertise helps guard against this perception.

Code 3.14 (Behavior Analysts and Media) may be relevant when disagreements about treatment approaches play out in public forums, social media, or educational materials. Behavior analysts should be careful to represent their discipline accurately and to avoid making disparaging comments about other professions or practitioners.

Code 1.01 (Being Truthful) requires behavior analysts to be honest in their professional communications. This means accurately representing the evidence base for both behavioral and nonbehavioral treatments, acknowledging uncertainty where it exists, and avoiding exaggerated claims about the superiority of behavioral approaches. Intellectual honesty builds the credibility that supports effective interdisciplinary collaboration.

The overarching ethical principle is that the client's welfare is the primary consideration. When interdisciplinary disagreements arise, the behavior analyst should ask what course of action is most likely to serve the client's interests, taking into account the full complexity of the situation including the importance of collaborative relationships for comprehensive care.

Assessment & Decision-Making

When faced with a nonbehavioral treatment recommendation, behavior analysts benefit from a structured decision-making framework that considers multiple factors before responding. A hasty or emotionally driven response can damage relationships and ultimately harm the client, while a thoughtful, systematic approach is more likely to produce a good outcome for all parties.

The first step is to assess the recommendation itself. What treatment is being recommended? By whom? What is the stated rationale? Before forming a response, the behavior analyst should understand the recommendation fully, including the professional context from which it comes. This may require asking clarifying questions of the recommending professional or doing independent research on the treatment.

The second step is to evaluate the evidence base for the recommended treatment. This evaluation should be fair and thorough, drawing on the relevant literature rather than dismissing the treatment based on preconceptions. Some treatments that behavior analysts may initially view with skepticism have empirical support from well-designed studies in other disciplines. Other treatments may have no empirical support whatsoever. The behavior analyst should be able to articulate the specific evidence, or lack thereof, that informs their evaluation.

The third step is to assess the potential for harm. Not all unsupported treatments are harmful. Some are benign and may provide comfort to the family even if they do not produce measurable behavioral outcomes. Others may be actively harmful, either directly (through dangerous procedures) or indirectly (by diverting time and resources from effective treatments). The potential for harm should be a primary consideration in determining how urgently the behavior analyst needs to respond.

The fourth step is to consider the relational context. What is the behavior analyst's relationship with the recommending professional? What is the family's relationship with that professional? How will different responses affect these relationships and, ultimately, the client's care? These considerations do not override the obligation to advocate for effective treatment, but they inform the strategy for doing so.

The fifth step is to develop a response strategy. Based on the assessment of the recommendation, its evidence base, its potential for harm, and the relational context, the behavior analyst can choose from several approaches. These include asking the recommending professional for the evidence supporting their recommendation, sharing relevant research on effective alternatives, proposing that the treatment be evaluated using behavioral data, suggesting a multidisciplinary case conference to discuss options, or, in cases where harm is imminent, escalating concerns to appropriate authorities.

The sixth step is to document the process. The behavior analyst should document their assessment of the recommendation, the evidence they considered, the response strategy they chose, and the outcome. This documentation protects the practitioner, serves the client, and provides a record that can inform future decisions in similar situations.

Throughout this process, the behavior analyst should maintain an attitude of genuine intellectual curiosity and humility. The goal is not to win an argument but to ensure that the client receives the best possible care. Sometimes this means the behavior analyst learns something new from a colleague in another discipline. Other times it means the behavior analyst must advocate firmly for evidence-based treatment in the face of well-meaning but unsupported recommendations.

What This Means for Your Practice

If you work with individuals with autism or other populations that receive multidisciplinary services, you will encounter nonbehavioral treatment recommendations. How you handle these situations will define your effectiveness as a collaborator and as an advocate for your clients.

Invest in relationships proactively. Build rapport with colleagues from other disciplines before disagreements arise. Attend team meetings, show genuine interest in what other professionals bring to the table, and demonstrate that you value comprehensive care rather than disciplinary dominance.

When you encounter a recommendation you disagree with, pause before responding. Assess the recommendation thoroughly, evaluate its evidence base fairly, and consider the potential for harm. Your response should be calibrated to the severity of the concern: benign treatments warrant a different approach than potentially harmful ones.

Frame discussions around the client's needs rather than disciplinary correctness. When you advocate for evidence-based treatment, do so in terms of what is most likely to help the client achieve meaningful outcomes rather than in terms of what the behavioral literature supports.

Be willing to learn from colleagues in other disciplines. Behavior analysis does not have all the answers, and genuine intellectual humility makes you a better practitioner and a more effective collaborator. When you approach interdisciplinary interactions with curiosity rather than defensiveness, you create opportunities for learning that benefit everyone, including your clients.