Association for Behavior Analysis International

The “replication crisis” describes recent high-profile challenges in replicating studies across diverse scientific fields, most notably psychology (Open Science Collaboration, 2015). To counter these challenges, open science is a movement towards greater transparency, accessibility, and openness in science and scientific research (Cook et al., 2018; Peters, 2014; Vicente-Saez & Martinez-Fuentes, 2018). The practices of open science align with accomplishing these goals. For example, open sharing of raw experimental data, study materials, and software code in data sharing platforms, such as the Open Science Framework, enables independent researchers to verify and replicate analytic procedures reported in a study (Gewin, 2016). Similarly, publishing scientific papers in open access forums that do not require subscription fees or other barriers, including as pre-prints, enables greater access to research among larger and more diverse scientific consumer groups, including students and researchers otherwise lacking resources for access (Suber, 2012). In contrast to the social and behavioral sciences community at large, ABA researchers rely primarily on single-case experimental designs (SCED) to conduct their scientific experiments. These designs typically employ visual analysis of graphically depicted data and inductive reasoning to derive functional relationships among experimental variables (Ledford & Gast, 2014). Since concerns with data integrity and calls for open science practices based on the replication crisis have largely applied to researchers using group experimental designs based on the null hypothesis statistic testing model, ABA researchers may feel a degree of immunity from scientific integrity concerns identified within the larger scientific community (Tincani & Travers, 2019). Analytic differences notwithstanding, we contend there are excellent reasons for SCED researchers working within an ABA framework to embrace open science practices. First, the contingencies that operate to produce Questionable Research Practices (QRPs) among scientists working within the group research tradition also operate on ABA researchers, although they might manifest in disparate ways given differences in the methodologies. Moreover, there are pathways to QRPs uniquely created by the SCED approach (Tincani & Travers, 2022). Second, although applied behavior analysts have traditionally eschewed inferential statistics in SCED data analysis, these techniques are becoming increasingly prevalent in SCED research, opening new pathways for QRPs. Finally, there are distinct benefits for SCED researchers who embrace open science practices. These include increased visibility for researchers who employ them, new collaboration opportunities, closing the longstanding gap between research and practice, and enhanced credibility conferred on our scientific enterprise, generally. Presenters in our symposium will overview the open science movement, discuss the need for ABA researchers to embrace open science practices grounded in recent empirical work on this topic, and highlight pre-registration of research as one open science practice to address potential concerns with scientific integrity of SCED research.

Stakeholders, RBTs, BCBAs, BCBA-Ds who currently or plan to design, implement, and/or report ABA research.