Understanding How Behavior Analysts Find the Field

As of April 2021, almost 46,000 behavior analysts maintain a Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA) certification. This number reflects a growing trend in the demand for behavior analysts in the workplace (BACB, 2019). This growth also relates to an increasing number of training programs (Shook & Favell, 2008). Presently, there are 843 training programs with Verified Course Sequences (VCSs) internationally, all of which are approved/verified through the Association for Behavior Analysis International (ABAI). With an increase of 90% from March of 2016 to March of 2019 (ABAI, 2019), clearly the additional exponential growth of training programs warrants further attention.

Geographic variation in both demand and availability of training programs poses a problem for our expanding field; uneven distribution of training programs correlates with a lower number of BCBA certificants, ultimately limiting accessibility of treatment and services provided by BCBAs (Deochand & Fuqua, 2016). Little is known broadly about BCBAs motivations for entering the field, or their process in selecting VCSs. Thus, by gaining key information about selection from participants about why they chose to study ABA, and more specifically, why they chose their specific program, researchers can begin to map important conditions that facilitate entry into the field.

Sample, Methodology, & Analysis

In 2018, we conducted a survey of nearly 100 behavior professionals across a state in the Mid-Atlantic region. Respondents answered a collection of closed- and open-ended questions targeting their personal and professional experiences: (a) prior to pursuing certification (i.e., introduction to ABA, decision to pursue certification, etc.); (b) while pursuing certification (i.e., supervision experiences, exam preparation, etc.); and (c) after obtaining certification (i.e., qualities of good analysts, etc.). Open-ended questions invited participants to provide extended written responses.

Open-ended responses were analyzed by several experienced qualitative researchers following an iterative process. Responses to each open-ended question constituted its own dataset. The first author constructed separate codebooks for each dataset via inductive, descriptive coding (Saldaña, 2016) of 20 responses (21.3% of the full sample) selected via a random integer generator. During descriptive coding, the first author applied a descriptive word or phrase to summarize key parts of the participants’ response (Saldaña, 2016). Each response could have one or more descriptive codes based on the details and length of the response (more explanation on the analytic methodology available from Justin Coy upon request). A secondary coder independently applied the appropriate codebook to all responses within each question, creating and applying new inductive codes as necessary. The first and second authors then reviewed responses and resulting codes within each question independently. The authors discussed concerns collaboratively to confirm accurate coding and make agreed upon additions or changes. Secondary pattern and axial coding (Miles et al., 2014; Saldaña, 2016) were used to create larger response themes, with subthemes as necessary to provide a more detailed description of responses. The first and second author jointly discussed emergent themes/subthemes within each dataset. Theme accuracy and organization were refined through discussion and exploration of supporting or confuting responses.

Key Results & Discussion

All analysts came to the field of ABA through their professional or personal experiences. This is consistent with some of our prior work which found “no one at the age of 14 knows they want to be a behavior analyst” (Coy & Russell, 2020). A majority of responding analysts reported discovering ABA through their professional work and/or trainings. This introduction typically came as a result of the future analysts’ work as direct service providers (i.e., therapeutic support staff, one-on-one, behavior support technician, etc.) or interactions with related education professionals (i.e., special educators, speech language pathologists, work at an approved private school, etc.). Analysts also came to find the field in their work with people with disabilities (typically Autism Spectrum Disorders [ASD]) and interactions with current behavior professionals (e.g., work supervisors and university faculty).

Future behavior professionals also often ‘find out’ about ABA through higher education coursework. Analysts took both undergraduate and graduate courses related to education and psychology in which they learned about the science of ABA. It’s critically important that faculty/instructors talking about ABA with students have the most up-to-date and accurate information about our discipline.

The largest remaining category of responses included analysts whom learned about the field through their personal interactions with family members with disabilities. In some cases, sons and brothers with ASD receiving in-home services helped introduce future analysts to the science. Given that, it is immensely important that ABA training programs and employers prepare current behavior analysts to act as ‘ambassadors’ of the science – combatting misconceptions and disseminating ABA effectively and authentically.

More information about this topic/survey is available – reach out to Justin with questions and requests! He looks forward to talking with you about this critical work.

If you’re attending the 2021 virtual ABAI conference, you can see more of this information and related survey responses during our presentation on Monday May 31st from 5:30-5:55 (you can find our paper session information HERE). I'll be sure to update this post with a copy of the presentation recording following the conference.