Guidelines for the Accreditation of Graduate Programs in Behavior Analysis
History and Background of ABA International Accreditation
An important component of ABA International's aim to disseminate information lies in the area of education. With this aim in mind, the Executive Council of the Association for Behavior Analysis created a task force in 1988 to work on possible accreditation of graduate programs in behavior analysis. The charge was not specific. Rather, the Task Force on Accreditation was left free to define accreditation and what kind of accreditation, if any, might be appropriate for ABA International. The members of the Task Force were Jon S. Bailey of Florida State University; Karen Blase of Hull Community Services; Don Bushell, Jr., of the University of Kansas; Anthony J. Cuvo of Southern Illinois University; R. Wayne Fuqua of Western Michigan University; William L. Heward of Ohio State University; B. L. Hopkins and James M. Johnston of Auburn University; Kennon A. Lattal of West Virginia University; Charles L. Salzberg of Utah State University; and Laura Schreibman of the University of California-San Diego. B. L. Hopkins served as the chair of the Task Force.
The Task Force on Accreditation met during the conventions held in 1989 and 1990 and corresponded throughout the two years. After much debate, a consensus developed among the members of the Task Force that, although there were obvious risks, a well-executed accreditation system might contribute to the effectiveness of our graduate training by a) causing us to be public and explicit about how we train, b) occasioning systematic and regular review of our training efforts, and c) creating a forum for sharing how we train. Potential benefits for the program would range from increased effectiveness of training to greater employment of its graduates to increased leverage with state legislatures regarding funding.
The members of the Task Force agreed that standards for accreditation should initially be simple, flexible, and few in number. They also agreed that the costs of accreditation should be modest. There was a particularly strong consensus that accreditation should not only protect the interests of behavior analysts but serve students and clients of behavioral services as well.
The Task Force established some working definitions of important terms:
- Accreditation was defined as a designation that a program of studies meets certain standards.
- Certification, in contrast, was identified as a designation bestowed on a person who has met certain standards of training or preparation.
- Licensure was identified as a legal entitlement often bestowed by states on individuals. This entitlement allows a person to engage in some business or occupation (e.g., psychology).
The Task Force limited its considerations to accreditation.
The members of the Task Force further agreed that the ABA International Accreditation service would concern the accreditation of graduate programs of study. A program of study need not have any official political or structural status in a college or university. A program of study might be nested in such a university division or it might even involve the faculty from two or more such divisions. The intent in emphasizing a program of study, rather than some political or administrative division of a university, was to provide a way for interested behavior analysts to promote accreditation independently of local structure. The important dimension would be the nature of the training that the students received, rather than the existence of a formal academic unit. In particular, ABA International does not accredit degrees at the undergraduate (e.g., BA, BS) or graduate (e.g., MS, MA, Ph.D.) level. The accreditation of degrees remains a matter for traditional academic accreditation agencies.
In addition, the Task Force adopted the position that accreditation was concerned with programs of study in any aspect of behavior analysis, from applied work to basic research to conceptual development to various combinations of these. Again, the emphasis was on the nature of the training received rather than on the labeling of the program. Thus, a program of study could be appropriate to the local setting, and would not have to be an entire graduate program devoted to the experimental analysis of behavior, applied behavior analysis, clinical psychology, or teacher education.
Pursuant to a suggestion from the ABA International Executive Council, the Task Force developed a set of minimum standards for accreditation of programs at both the master's and the doctoral level. The minimum standards at the master's level consist of an educational program with instruction in behavior-analytic approaches to research and conceptual issues that includes: a) a curriculum topic in the principles of behavior; b) a curriculum topic in within-subjects research methodology and direct observation of behavior; c) a curriculum topic in conceptual issues; and d) a curriculum topic in behavioral interventions with such possible emphases as behavior therapy, behavioral teaching, and behavioral medicine. The standards further specify a thesis, review paper, or general examination whose questions and methods are based on a behavior-analytic approach to problems or issues. The term curriculum topic was used rather than course to emphasize the importance of the nature of the educational experience, rather than the often arbitrary distribution of activities over time.
The minimum standards at the doctoral level are a continuation or an extension of master's-level standards. Thus, doctoral-level standards assume that students would have already satisfied the master's-level standards. The doctoral-level standards consist of an educational program with instruction in behavior-analytic approaches to research and conceptual issues that includes: a) an advanced curriculum topic in one or more specialized areas of the non-human and/or human basic research literature, b) an advanced curriculum topic in research methods, and c) an advanced curriculum topic focusing on one or more areas of the applied behavioral literature. The standards for a doctoral program of study further specify a dissertation whose questions and methods are based on a behavior-analytic approach to problems and issues.
The Task Force noted options available to the program being reviewed. It also recommended procedures for modifying the standards, appointing members to the ABA International Accreditation Board, and the Board's receiving and reviewing applications for accreditation. It is especially important to note that the Board will only make recommendations about accreditation to the Executive Council. All action is taken by the Council.
Purpose of ABA International Accreditation
A well-executed accreditation system contributes to the effectiveness of ABA International’s graduate training by:
- occasioning the organization and its membership to be public and explicit about how professionals are trained,
- occasioning systematic and regular review of ABA training efforts, and
- creating a forum for sharing how ABA International trains its professionals.
On May 27, 1991, the Final Report of the Task Force on Accreditation was presented to the ABA Executive Council. It was approved unanimously. This handbook is an outgrowth of that action. The text of this brief background was taken from the following sources:
Hopkins, B. L. (1991). ABA to begin accrediting graduate programs of studies in behavior analysis. ABA Newsletter, 14(3), 19-21.
Hopkins, B. L., & Moore, J. (1993). ABA accreditation of graduate programs of study. The Behavior Analyst, 16, 117-121.