This is a fantastic quote that I recommend colleagues review in the full context. Parnham's points here speak to themes of social validity, cultural humility, and listening actively to the needs of those we serve.

Join me in annotating Creem et al. (2024) in Hypothes.is!

There is no reference to a specific IRB/HSC review for this study (i.e., an IRB review number). As a peer reviewer, I would have asked the authors to provide evidence that an institutional review board reviewed the proposed study to ensure that the collection and reference of these social media posts conform to standards and best practices in online research.

This exemplar includes reference to the BCBA's personal experience of being taught procedures that are now considered harmful and inhumane (low social validity). That's a personal communication and the speaker's own experience. It is unclear how this is "inflammatory content."

For example: I attended FABA in 2012 and saw a retired behavior analyst describe how they used to use open-handed slaps or present noxious smelling salts to intellectually disabled clients to empirically verify that these procedures were effective deceleration techniques (i.e., behavior modification, not a culturally humble, compassionate, function-informed ABA). I share this example with my students often to show how far the field has come and how just because you can change behavior doesn't mean you should; I do not consider this defamation or inflammatory behavior.

Evidence for racial preferences in invited speakers at the ABAI annual conference; see Cirincione-Ulezi 2020

Effects of performative allyship on Black Behaviorists; see Sylvain et al., 2022

See also Sylvain et al (2022) on the effects of performative allyship with a marginalized group.

Personal opinion: Engaging with a discourse on social media around practice sets the occasion for the audience to research the literature for additional evidence. These public conversations can expand the knowledge of those engaging with and witnessing those conversations.

Contextual note: Mund 2018 is a piece on the expectations of online privacy as they relate to 4th amendment rights (i.e., surveillance by police). It would not be an appropriate citation to speak to the appropriateness of privacy expectations for RESEARCH.

Zero examples were taken from social media to support this section.

The lack of cited examples raises the question: why are behavior analysts being "cited" (read: called out) in previous sections? Why not simply provide deidentified or fabricated case examples for previous ethical scenarios (a la Markham, 2012)?

Editorial note: no evidence provided for why THESE sources are valid /reliable information, yet others are not.

Providing accurate practice recommendations and models in short videos can be a valuable open-access resource for the community.

Source(s) inaccessible - private social media group(s).

Function = escape of any criticism of ABA practices or procedures. Moreover, following this advice reinforces disciplinary centrism and is a terrible strategy for developing/maintaining rapport.

This clause applies only to individuals certified by the CPBA-AP. https://progressivebehavioranalyst.org/certification-process/

Note: no actual harm was indicated. All perceived/potential harms are hypothetical.

IMO, slippery slope argument (logical fallacy).

Conference presentation not available for review.

Formatting note: This resource should be cited as either the creator as a business entity (Dr. Megan DeLeon, as included in the references of this paper) or as "(DeLeon, 2020)" for parallel structure to surrounding references.

Sources featured autistic self-advocates to bring concerns with ABA directly to podcasts geared toward ABA professionals. (Guilt through association; association with ABA critics is not unethical.)

IMO, having reviewed these resources, the behavior analysts who participated present a compassionate and empirical science of behavior analysis. It appears these behavior analysts are being deemed unethical by dint of their association with autistic self-advocates and ABA critics.

Note: Individuals are not behavior analysts, not subject to ethical oversight by any behavior analytic body.

Note: Group is not behavior analytic in nature, is not subject to ethical oversight by any behavior analytic body.

Source(s) inaccessible - private social media group(s).

Source(s) inaccessible - private social media group(s).

Source(s) inaccessible - private social media group(s).

Note: formatting - Multiple sources in this manuscript might be referred to as "Leaf et al., 2022"

IMO, I see little evidence that the author(s) have engaged in their recommended actions, including taking time to listen and working collaboratively with those 'cited' to address concerns.

IMO, I'm struggling to see the compassion in this manuscript.

Source(s) inaccessible - private social media group(s).

Source(s) inaccessible - private social media group(s).

Source(s) inaccessible - private social media group(s).

Source(s) inaccessible - private social media group(s).

Contextual note: At least one exemplar within this manuscript appears to have been reported to the BACB and KYABA. According to the professional investigated, these allegations were found meritless.

https://www.facebook.com/jenilee.stepp/posts/pfbid0sSPKn89xbYKMnsTtwtoDHshycPGude3ahv4G9SJgP8oAdJ8bh9qn5Y1EF8zH7VNjl

NOTE: Example used with permission.

At what point in the ethics resolution process is it appropriate to document perceived transgressions against specific individuals and weave them into a public-facing, open-access manuscript?

Would this be consistent with the BACB Ethics Code? "Behavior analysts collaborate with colleagues from their own and other professions in the best interest of clients and stakeholders. Behavior analysts address conflicts by compromising when possible and always prioritizing the best interest of the client. Behavior analysts document all actions taken in these circumstances and their eventual outcomes." https://www.bacb.com/ethics-information/ethics-codes/

"Tone policing is when someone (usually a privileged person) in a conversation about oppression shifts the conversation from the oppression being discussed to the way it is being discussed. Tone policing prioritizes the comfort of the privileged person in the situation over the oppression of the disadvantaged person." - Oluo, 2019, chapter 15

https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/ijeoma-oluo/so-you-want-to-talk-about-race/9781541619227/?lens=seal-press

"Recently, individuals certified by the BACB have been involved in concerning discussions on social media. This has led some to wonder whether making a repugnant or controversial public statement constitutes a violation of the BACB’s ethics requirements. The following activities are not typically actionable by the BACB due to US First Amendment rights that supersede the BACB’s authority: (1) opinion statements, (2) parodies, (3) hypothetical discussions. While we appreciate the concerns about controversial speech and might share those concerns in some cases, the BACB cannot be the avenue for redress unless the speech includes a violation of client rights, the law, or BACB ethics requirements." - BACB Newsletter September 2023

https://www.bacb.com/now-available-september-2023-bacb-newsletter/

Doesn't peer-to-peer surveillance also reduce the MO for collaboration, sharing information publicly for fear of being a public example in a forthcoming manuscript?

See also: "...[N]umerous behavior analysts may question the ethics of collaborating with 'pseudoscientists' using the program (e.g., Long, 2017) or fear retribution from their peers if they do. While the actual rates of reports made to the BACB by fellow behavior analysts are low (BACB, 2018), the public threat of 'disciplinary action' is visceral." Kirby et al., 2022. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42822-022-00092-4

Doesn't peer-to-peer surveillance used as source material for a public article also create division within the field?

IMO - argument from incredulity (logical fallacy). I would like to see evidence that strong language harms our consumers.

Note also: Terra Vance is CEO of NeuroClastic, an author and advocate, and holds an advanced degree in I/O Psychology. In my opinion (IMO), refer to Vance as merely an "autistic person" is egregiously dismissive.

This particular claim is especially troubling because this content cannot be fact-checked because this conversation took place in a private group.

The fact that this anecdote has gone through and been approved by the peer-review process leaves the reader to infer that these authors MUST be accurate in their appraisal and that the peer-reviewers MUST have vetted and confirmed the accuracy of this exemplar.

Contextual note - Newman is an autistic self-advocate and was asked to speak from a place of subject-matter expertise (i.e., the perception of ABA from members of the Autistic community), making this a personal opinion.

As a non-behaviorist, Newman's behavior is not subject to BACB/IBAO oversight.

Source(s) inaccessible - private social media group(s).

Source(s) inaccessible - private social media group(s).

ABAI conferences contain a variety of access barriers for those with disabilities.

The expression "full of shit" is not intended to be taken literally; instead, it refers to the idea that the subject believes the target object is untrustworthy, wrong, misinformed, etc. Would reframing to suggest that the Association for Behavior Analysis International [ABAI] was simply 'Full of IT' be considered more professional?

Source(s) inaccessible - private social media group(s).

Source(s) inaccessible - private social media group(s).

"Professional" and "professional discourse" never defined. Numerous non-examples are given, but not examples.

Source inaccessible - conference presentation.

Personal opinion -- Straw Man argument (logical fallacy).

While some "alternative treatments" (e.g., bleach cleansing) pose very clear risks to consumers, alternative strategies like Social Stories may still be efficacious when combined with behavior analytic techniques as part of a larger treatment package. This would be particularly important for professionals working with interdisciplinary teams or those hoping to honor the preferences of family members.

Personal opinion - This approach would kill any established rapport with this individual.

See Kirby et al. (2022), "putting it all together" for an alternative strategy that emphasizes the use of strong behavior analytic principles plus data collection to critically evaluate the efficacy of 'alternative' treatments outside main stream behavior analysis.

Editorial note: evidence-based practice involves three components - support from published research, client/caregiver preference, and clinical expertise: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/nursing/center-nursing-inquiry/nursing-inquiry/evidence-based-practice

That is, a behavior analyst can develop an intervention consistent with the behavior analytic principles that has little empirical support in the published literature and it can still be EBP.

See also: Spencer, T. D., Detrich, R., & Slocum, T. A. (2012). Evidence-based practice: A framework for making effective decisions. Education and Treatment of Children, 35(2), 127–151. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2012.0013

"Furthermore, the title of the Leaf et al. (2016) article implied that the program was a pseudoscience. As a result, numerous behavior analysts may question the ethics of collaborating with “pseudoscientists” using the program (e.g., Long, 2017) or fear retribution from their peers if they do." - Kirby et al., 2022 - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42822-022-00092-4

Why no reference to Social Validity (Wolf, 1978)?

Editorial note: Ironically, I cannot fact-check this source because the embargo period doesn't end until 418/2024, nor can I access this article through my BACB-provided resources. I am privileged to have access to interlibrary loans through my university affiliation, but not every clinician is so lucky.

Perhaps it would be fair to say that the use of peer recommendations for efficacious interventions recruited via social media is a symptom of larger access issues as many clinicians struggle with limited access to effective research and time to find, read, and critically evaluate those sources.

Given that the authors have cited a multitude of social media posts which can be altered, hidden, or deleted (thus, unverified), it could be argued that essential elements of THIS paper cannot be supported by evidence.

Meaning slightly unclear. By definition, a "private" Facebook page is moderated and may be visible to the general public or visible only to admitted members of that group. However, if the more significant point is that "a private Facebook group is still a public forum where the audience for posts and comments may be unknown to the author," this may be accurate.

Note: small formatting error - year of publication for these two works included at end. Should instead read: "(e.g., Arthur et al., 2023; Leaf & Cihon, 2022; Leaf, Cihon, Javed et al., 2022)"

Formatting note: It is not common to include the citation as an example of myriad references "(e.g., [citation])" to then subsequently cite the same article in the following sentence. I would have liked to see 2-4 citations to support the argument that there have been previous attempts to address concerns with the use of social media, ideally in public, peer-reviewed spaces vs. conferences, private spaces that can be accessed by only a few.

Citation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5352618/

Of the four authors, none appear to be directly affiliated with any ethical board or governing body, meaning their concerns are worth noting but should not be taken as an authoritative on these topics.

Absence of evidence = evidence of absence argument. Simply because authors have previously published their concerns related to social media behavior does not mean that they're correct or that their opinion is valid guidance on ethical conduct in online spaces. Seeing behavior to the contrary of these earlier guidelines is also not evidence that anyone who engages in behavior the authors deem 'problematic' has (a) failed to see the guidance or (b) is disregarding the guidance.

By framing the current paper's argument this way, Creem et al. (2024) frame the reader to infer that the subsequent case examples are borne either of ignorance OR negligence.

Author(s) seem to be indicating that the conversations taking place in THESE forums (Applied Behavior Analysis, Behaviorbabe, The Daily BA) are important, but provide no evidence to why these sources are legitimate while others (e.g., Do Better) are not.

Note: formatting error - comma should be omitted.

Note: small formatting error - erroneous closed parenthesis.

Note: small formatting error - (2012a) should be bracketed as it is located within parentheses.

Regarding the authorship team - note that the word "Leaf" appears in the .pdf version of this document 48 times, causing some to argue that this study may be an example of extensive 'self-citation'.

Self-citation occurs when an author references their own publications. Self-citation is not considered unethical or misleading, and may be common if the area of research is particularly narrow.

How much is too much? There is no firm standard accepted in the field of behavior analysis. Other fields have argued that as much as 20% may be a tolerable limit (Aksnes et al., 2019). To figure self-citation in this study, it would be prudent to omit the 43 (or more) cited case examples before calculating the self-citation rate of these authors.

Read more: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10338646

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-020-03417-5

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/research-and-innovation/support-for-staff/scholarly-communication/bibliometrics/citation-metrics/self-citations/

Join me in annotating Scrolling Into Trouble (Creem et al., 2024) in Hypothes.is!