Positive Behavioural Support and ABA discussion about PBS vrs ABA and the 2016 ethics code I spent a large amount of time being very negative about ABA as has been documented elsewhere. This issue was in place having witnessed some ABA practitioners frankly doing things I did not agree with. However 20 years later there have been some marked changes in the system. As with anything there are still people who are not updating themselves to remain current and not delivering the best service they could. This reminds me of trainers I have met still teaching restrictive practice when they themselves have a very outdated skill set / focus. In the UK we have a groundswell of movement towards PBS which is in part a branding issue. Let me say up front that I understand a lot about Positive Behaviour Support and Applied Behavioural Analysis. My work put me in the path of PBS a number of years ago and this was a confusing time as it's philosophy and values fitted what I had been doing for 20 plus years however it also needed this connection to the science of ABA which I was sceptical about based on my previous experience of ABA. However as part of the process I took some ABA courses. It seemed staggering to me that PBS has a basic premise of being based on ABA principles but including a Values base, person centred approach and a strong aversion to punishment based procedures. This is where my confusion increases. Now that I have completed a number of ABA courses I strongly believe the practitioners I met all that time ago were implementing the procedures laid down in ABA in an inappropriate manner. It is important to note that modern ABA teaching appears to mirror the elements that those, PBS acolytes, imply make them different from ABA. Code 2016 The Behaviour Analyst Certification Board’s (BACB’s) Professional and Ethical Compliance Code for Behaviour Analysts was updated and effective 1st Jan 2016. This code 4.08 Considerations Regarding Punishment Procedures. (a) Behavior analysts recommend reinforcement rather than punishment whenever possible. (b) If punishment procedures are necessary, behavior analysts always include reinforcement procedures for alternative behavior in the behavior-change program. (c) Before implementing punishment-based procedures, behavior analysts ensure that appropriate steps have been taken to implement reinforcement-based procedures unless the severity or dangerousness of the behavior necessitates immediate use of aversive procedures. (d) Behavior analysts ensure that aversive procedures are accompanied by an increased level of training, supervision, and oversight. Behavior analysts must evaluate the effectiveness of aversive procedures in a timely manner and modify the behavior-change program if it is ineffective. Behavior analysts always include a plan to discontinue the use of aversive procedures when no longer needed. 4.09 Least Restrictive Procedures. Behavior analysts review and appraise the restrictiveness of procedures and always recommend the least restrictive procedures likely to be effective. The least restrictive option is now built into the (BACB’s) Professional and Ethical Compliance Code for Behaviour Analysts 2016. In the UK it is a tenant of the Mental Capacity Act. With regards to the supervision aspect of the training, I have not yet been involved with any actual work that has led me to question the value of those working or those supervising me. I remember ABA types not playing well with others in terms of working with other disciplines or professionals and subsequently I learnt PBS having this as a central tenet. Well this again is part of the code around interacting with other professionals Code Element 2 Although through my friends I have come across a PBS team who were implementing a punishment system on her son. Something that on inspection no one I work with in ABA would have done. Of course the response is always that individuals can do the wrong thing and I respect that, however this was a local authority team. A last point on this is if your argument is people can take information and put it into practice badly then this holds true for people misrepresenting ABA in the past. Our service is only as good as the practitioner. The first company who convinced me to look further at ABA, opened the conversation to my closed mind by stating they have a policy of no punishment. We all have issues with opening our minds [[link to affirming your own beliefs]] and none of us are the people we were 10 years ago [[ post ]]. Let alone the public perception or understanding around the term "punishment" And so my question is, based on the modern ABA code 2016, does it take into account all of the elements that are considered different in PBS? Are we not all talking about the same thing? I know some of the die hard PBS brigade will disagree with me and that is acceptable. However I do struggle to see significant differences. --- ## update Since this was written I have spent an amount of time assisting several PBS services including supervising people on their PBS courses. There does seem to be a difference in that PBS is very good at systems and structure and the ABA brigade seem better at the focal individual. I am sure this will upset a number of people :-)