0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Updated Strategies for Making Regular Contact With the Scholarly Literature

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts (Behavior Analyst Certification Board, 2020a) states that behavior analysts must provide services based on the published scientific evidence (Code 2.01, “Providing Effective Treatment”) and maintain competence by reading relevant scholarly literature (Code 1.06, “Maintaining Competence”). Carr and Briggs ( 2010) acknowledged several potential barriers that might prevent behavior analysts from pursuing this obligation and offered helpful recommendations for circumventing these barriers. Although the nature of these barriers has primarily stayed the same since the publication of Carr and Briggs, the profession and field have grown more complex over the past decade, and several additional barriers have emerged. Luckily, technological advances and resources recently made available offer additional solutions for behavior analysts to consider adopting. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to provide an update to the strategies described by Carr and Briggs for overcoming barriers related to searching the literature, accessing journal content, and contacting the contemporary literature. In addition, we conclude with how leaders might incorporate the proposed strategies into their organization at a systems-wide level.

          Related collections

          Most cited references20

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The functions of self-injurious behavior: an experimental-epidemiological analysis.

          Data are summarized from 152 single-subject analyses of the reinforcing functions of self-injurious behavior (SIB). Individuals with developmental disabilities referred for assessment and/or treatment over an 11-year period were exposed to a series of conditions in which the effects of antecedent and consequent events on SIB were examined systematically by way of multielement, reversal, or combined designs. Data were collected during approximately 4,000 experimental sessions (1,000 hr), with the length of assessment for individuals ranging from 8 to 66 sessions (M = 26.2) conducted over 2 to 16.5 hr (M = 6.5). Differential or uniformly high responding was observed in 145 (95.4%) of the cases. Social-negative reinforcement (escape from task demands or other sources of aversive stimulation) accounted for 58 cases, which was the largest proportion of the sample (38.1%). Social-positive reinforcement (either attention or access to food or materials) accounted for 40 (26.3%) of the cases, automatic (sensory) reinforcement accounted for 39 (25.7%), and multiple controlling variables accounted for 8 (5.3%). Seven sets of data (4.6%) showed either cyclical or inconsistent patterns of responding that were uninterpretable. Overall results indicated that functional analysis methodologies are extremely effective in identifying the environmental determinants of SIB on an individual basis and, subsequently, in guiding the process of treatment selection. Furthermore, an accumulation of assessment data from such analyses across a large number of individuals provides perhaps the most rigorous approach to an epidemiological study of behavioral function.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A Call for Discussion About Scope of Competence in Behavior Analysis

            The field of behavior analysis has defined its scope of practice through credentialing and licensure efforts. However, scope of competence in behavior analysis has received little discussion. Scope of competence refers to activities that the individual practitioner can perform at a certain criterion level (e.g., the functional analysis is conducted accurately and safely, a skill acquisition program includes critical program components and establishes accurate stimulus control). Given the successful efforts of behavior analysts in growth and recognition of the field, it is time for a robust conversation about scope of competence for the field of behavior analysis. This discussion can clarify how behavior analysts self-evaluate their own scope of competence and how they might expand their scope of competence if the needs of consumers require practitioners to expand into new areas.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Expanding the Consumer Base for Behavior-Analytic Services: Meeting the Needs of Consumers in the 21st Century

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                abrigg11@emich.edu
                Journal
                Behav Anal Pract
                Behav Anal Pract
                Behavior Analysis in Practice
                Springer International Publishing (Cham )
                1998-1929
                2196-8934
                8 July 2021
                : 1-12
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.255399.1, ISNI 0000000106743006, Psychology Department, , Eastern Michigan University, ; 301K Mark Jefferson Science Complex, Ypsilanti, MI 48197 USA
                [2 ]GRID grid.430387.b, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8796, Children’s Specialized Hospital–Rutgers University Center for Autism Research, Education, and Services, ; Somerset, NJ USA
                [3 ]GRID grid.430387.b, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8796, Department of Pediatrics, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, ; New Brunswick, NJ USA
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3460-7607
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8940-0657
                Article
                590
                10.1007/s40617-021-00590-8
                8265291
                34257833
                299a3c3d-fb09-4f7e-a500-8bf61fb2dbc3
                © Association for Behavior Analysis International 2021

                This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.

                History
                : 31 March 2021
                Categories
                Discussion and Review Paper

                continuing education,ethical obligation,evidence-based practice,information literacy,professional development

                Comments

                Comment on this article