Recognizing Questionable and Disproven Practices and Responding to Team Members who Recommend Them
Behavior analysts and the professionals they often collaborate with are sometimes presented with a difficult challenge without a clear solution. Team members may suggest or are interested in using an intervention that may not be sufficiently supported by scientific evidence. Disagreements about the best course of action can compromise interprofessional collaboration and sometimes turn ugly, leaving some team members to begin working in isolation from rather than collaborating with each other. This session will identify which interventions should be avoided, but also how behavior analysts might engage with other professionals to examine the efficacy of recommended interventions. By engaging in an inquiry-driven approach to comparing interventions, professionals might develop stronger relationships with their non-behavior analytic colleagues while advancing evidence-based practice and better outcomes for the people they serve.
Objectives:
- Discriminate between dangerous and potentially harmful practices that must be avoided from those potentially less harmful that can be evaluated.
- Use a series of questions to team members who are recommending an intervention not supported by scientific research to better understand and elucidate concerns for respectful discussion.
- Propose and begin to carry out comparisons between a questionable (but not dangerous) intervention and an evidence-based intervention to obtain objective results for the team’s consideration.
About the Presenter
Dr. Travers conclusions were extremely solid. However his foundational approach based on cold logic. Not that logic should be discounted but the use of ABA in sterile non-tractable environments early in the lecture were very jarring and seemed very biased toward strict scientific rigor as the only way to engage in the world. His conclusion gave good reasons for this but the order in which he presented was significantly jarring and un-empathetic towards Applied settings where we have to be flexible highly empathetic towards the people we encounter who might be using faulty/imperfect research. It lacked the human element that makes good ambassadors of ABA. I almost stopped listening after the first hour because strong adherence to philosophical argumentation puts ABA on a pedestal of superiority. Rather than a deeply human endeavor. But once again hid did bring it home with a very strong human touch.
The presenter is very knowledgeable, however, his monotone makes it very hard to stay engaged throughout the presentation.
I think he should re-record it and include some updates to the claims of trauma in ABA and discuss trauma-informed practices that are deterministic and effective. He gives the impression that he does not believe some of the claims that ABA caused some PTSD in older clients who received ABA in the future. There is a limit to what we can study and sometimes we do need to consider non-validated claims when the risk of ignoring those claims is high AND when research to prove/disprove a claim is slow.
Really impactful and thought provoking. I wish Behavior Analytic coursework included information on this to better prepare those in the field for ways to handle these inevitable situations
This excellent presentation is much needed for many in the ABA field that have drifted into areas and practices that are not evidence-based. Also, a great resource for behavior analysts inundated with demands from various stakeholders to engage in unproven methodologies.
This course presented good information in a systematic way and includes important information on increasing buy-in and support from fields in which we are often collaborating.
Loved this presentation! It was very helpful, used objective definitions to describe different practices as well as tools to help identify non-evidenced based practices. This presentation was well spoke and provided great resources to support the information given.
The course was organized and very applicable to our day-to-day processes.
This was a great CEU that was fairly simple and effective. You had about 10-12 simple quiz questions in between videos. And the teacher did a great job of highlighting the different false arguments that people can make. He also covered how to collaborate with team members with respect and kindness, while still sticking to evidence based practices. Well done!
Course information
- Title: Recognizing Disproven Practices and Requests to Use Them
- Presenter: Jason Travers PhD
- CEUs: 2 Learning - Ethics
- Duration: 1 hour and 40 minutes
- Customer Rating: (571)