Moving Under the Dome: Prevalence of Professional and Supervisory Emphasis of Behavior Analysts in Health, Sports, and Fitness

Abstract

Health, sports, and fitness (HSF) are important areas of applied behavior analysis with a growing body of research supporting its development. Although research efforts are ongoing, there appear to be few clinical positions for behavior analysts in HSF (Behavior Analyst Certification Board [BACB], n.d). Therefore, the goal of this study was to investigate the extent to which behavior analysts have training and experience in HSF. We gathered survey information regarding basic demographic information, supervisory fieldwork and professional experience, experience and practice in domains of HSF, and interest in as well as barriers to practicing behavior analysis in HSF. Overall, 142 respondents completed the survey, and results indicate that most respondents have limited experience practicing behavior analysis in HSF, are interested in practicing, but are unsure where to begin. The results offer valuable insights into how our field is currently engaging with HSF and where there are opportunities for growth.

This paper explores the current scope, barriers, and opportunities for behavior analysts practicing in the domains of health, sports, and fitness (HSF). The field of behavior analysis has traditionally focused on autism-related services, but there is growing interest in expanding its application to other domains, such as HSF. A considerable portion of behavior analysts work with individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). In 2020, 74.41% of Board Certified Behavior Analysts (BCBAs) reportedly worked in the area of ASD (Holland & Slowiak, 2021) and in 2024, 82.11% of BCBAs worked in this domain (Behavior Analyst Certification Board [BACB], n.d). However, the field of behavior analysis holds significant potential for application in other disciplines. Fifteen years ago, Friman (2010) and Poling (2010) separately advocated the need to integrate the practices of behavior analysis into other fields. Additionally, Normand and Kohn (2013) discussed potential benefits of BCBAs diversifying their practice areas, as well as different career paths one could take as a BCBA apart from ASD. Others have since continued to advocate for the application of behavior analysis in other domains (e.g., Alligood & Gravina, 2020; Brodhead et al., 2018). For example, Alligood and Gravina (2020) suggested steps for behavior analysts to take when exploring new areas of application, such as obtaining a mentor and seeking higher education (e.g., masters or doctoral degree) from a credible institution.

Although the practice of behavior analysis has largely been applied to ASD, researchers have investigated behavioral procedures across more than 350 areas of socially significant behavior (see Heward et al., 2022 for full review). These include active shooter drills in schools (Dickson & Vargo, 2017), gerontology (Trahan et al., 2011), aviation safety (Rantz & Van Houten, 2011), land mine detection (Poling, 2011), and health, sports, and fitness (Hausman et al., 2014; Schenck & Miltenberger, 2019; Zerger et al., 2017). Despite research supporting the utility of applied behavior analysis (ABA) in addressing this broad array of issues, BCBAs do not commonly practice in many of these areas. The field remains heavily concentrated in ASD, leaving numerous socially important domains underrepresented in applied practice.

One area of research in behavior analysis outside of autism and developmental disabilities is health, sports, and fitness (HSF). Health research and practice in behavior analysis has varied applications such as an interventions to increase calorie expenditure (Donaldson & Normand, 2009), accuracy of portion size estimates (Hausman et al., 2014), medication compliance (Dufour & Lanovaz, 2020; Stuesser & Roscoe, 2020), smoking and drug cessation (Dallery et al., 2011; Dallery et al., 2013; Silverman et al., 2008), and weight reduction (Kraschnewski et al., 2023; Wadden et al., 2019). In the domain of health, practitioners can address a wide range of health-related behaviors by developing individualized interventions that promote healthier lifestyles and support long-term behavior change.

Sports research has also become increasingly popular (see reviews by Luiselli & Reed, 2015 and Schenck & Miltenberger, 2019) and can be defined as the implementation of behavioral procedures to enhance the performance of a skill related to an organized sport (e.g., Martinez et al., 2024; Tai & Miltenberger, 2017; Wiley et al., 2024). Researchers such as Luiselli et al. (2011), Luiselli and Reed (2015), Martin (2015), and Schenck and Miltenberger (2019) have highlighted the prevalence of sports-related research and how behavior analytic techniques have made an impact in this area of research and practice. For instance, Luiselli et al. (2011) describe how behavior analysis has been effectively applied to numerous sports across various populations such as adults, children, and individuals with disabilities. Further, Schenk and Miltenberger (2019) identified 101 studies that evaluated behavioral interventions to produce athletic improvement. In this review, the authors note that there are many avenues for practitioners in behavior analysis and sports.

Physical activity and exercise to increase fitness levels is another socially significant focus of behavior analytic research (Page et al., 2021). Fitness can be defined as an individual’s overall physical well-being and endurance resulting from engaging in regular physical activity and exercise (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2023; Page et al., 2021). The CDC (2023) recommends a minimum of 150 min of moderate physical activity or 75 min of vigorous physical activity per week and many individuals do not achieve this (Chin et al., 2024; Troiano et al., 2008). Fitness-related research focused on increasing physical activity or exercise includes numerous interventions such as exergaming (Fogel et al., 2010; Shayne et al., 2012), video modeling, prompting, and praise (Adamo et al., 2015), pairing and feedback (Zerger et al., 2017), and contingency management (Kurti & Dallery, 2013). Researchers have targeted behaviors such as total step count (Miller et al., 2022; Miller et al., 2018; Normand, 2008; Zerger et al., 2017), walking (Kurti & Dallery, 2013), and moderate to vigorous physical activity (Adamo et al., 2015; Fogel et al., 2010; Shayne et al., 2012). In this domain, practitioners can apply behavior analytic principles to design interventions that encourage consistent physical activity, reinforce healthy behaviors, and ultimately improve individuals’ fitness levels.

Although HSF-related research has been a part of behavior analysis for most of its existence (Epstein et al., 1976) and recent research supports the application of behavior analysis in HSF (Holland & Slowiak, 2021; Normand & Bober, 2020; Normand et al., 2021), there continues to be a low percentage of BCBAs practicing in HSF. With support from the Behavior Analysis in Health, Sports, and Fitness Special Interest Group (HSF SIG) of the Association for Behavior Analysis International (ABAI), a special issue on HSF in the journal, Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice (Ringdahl, 2021) was published to increase awareness of applications of behavior analysis in HSF. In this issue, behavior analysis research in HSF included reducing rapid eating (May & Catrone, 2021), improving sports performance (Mulqueen et al., 2021; O’Donnell et al., 2021), and increasing physical activity in children (Van Camp et al., 2021) and adults (Batchelder & Washington, 2021; Courtemanche et al., 2021; Hanashiro-Parson & Miltenberger, 2021; Krebs & Nyein, 2021). However, despite these research efforts, as of 2024, just 0.13% of certified behavior analysts reported practicing behavior analysis in these domains (BACB, n.d). Further, of the 17 areas of professional emphasis identified by the BACB, sports and fitness is the sixth lowest area practiced (BACB, n.d). To develop a better understanding of the current practices in behavior analysis, the purpose of this survey was to obtain information from behavior analysts on experiences, training, interest in, and barriers to practicing behavior analysis in HSF.

Method

Participants

We sent anonymous surveys to behavior analysts certified by the BACB at any credential level (i.e., BCaBA, BCBA, BCBA-D). We did not include Registered Behavior Technicians (RBTs) in our sample because our study aimed to gather insights from individuals with higher levels of education, training, and decision-making authority within the field of behavior analysis. BCBAs, BCaBAs, and BCBA-Ds are responsible for assessment, treatment planning, supervision, and research, making them well-positioned to provide perspectives on expanding behavior analysis into HSF settings. We recruited survey respondents in multiple ways, including flyers distributed around the University of South Florida ABA department, emails to members of professional associations (i.e., HSF SIG, Association of Professional Behavior Analysis, the Counsil of Autism Service Providers, and the Teaching Behavior Analysis Listserv), and other colleagues, and posts on social media platforms including Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn. In total, 142 behavior analysts responded to the survey. Of 118 respondents who provided information about their certification, five respondents were BCaBAs, 87 respondents were BCBAs, and 26 respondents were BCBA-Ds with initial certification dates ranging from 2002 to 2024. Surveys were completed from respondents in 28 states and four surveys were completed from outside of the United States (not specified). The three states with the most respondents included Florida (n = 26), New Jersey (n = 21), and Virginia (n = 10).

Instrument

The University of South Florida Institutional Review Board approved the study procedures before survey distribution. Survey respondents were able to access the survey through a link and could complete the survey at any time for 10 months. After discontinuing recruitment, the data were extracted into an Excel file for further analysis. The survey, hosted by Qualtrics, comprised 37 closed-ended questions and three open-ended questions. The closed-ended questions were multiple choice or select all that apply, and the open-ended questions were fill in the blank. The final question asked respondents to provide additional information at their own discretion. Questions covered basic demographic information, level of training, supervision experience, professional experience in HSF, and barriers to obtaining experience in HSF. Two BCBA-Ds along with two BCBAs reviewed the draft questions and provided feedback. The authors made edits based on this feedback; a complete list of the final survey questions can be found in Appendix A. The first question allowed the respondent to consent to the continuation of the survey and to the information being collected for research purposes. Fifteen questions pertained to demographic information, eight questions asked respondents about training experience in HSF, 13 questions asked about professional practice in HSF, and two questions asked respondents about barriers to and interest in practicing behavior analysis in HSF. The last question was an open-response question allowing the participants to provide any additional information. Of the closed-ended questions, 23 were multiple choice and 13 were select all that apply. Of the open-ended questions, two were fill in the blank and the final question asked respondents if there was anything else they would like to share about their experience as a behavior analyst related to education, training, or practice in the area of HSF, before they were directed to the end of the survey.

Results

Table 1 summarizes the demographic information. Most respondents identified as non-Hispanic (89%; n = 114) and white (85%; n = 110), with 44% (n = 56) between the ages of 35 and 44, and 74% (n = 87) holding a BCBA certification. Regarding training in HSF, 92% (n = 112) indicated that their bachelor’s degree did not include a specialization related to HSF. Specific to graduate training, 64% (n = 78) reported receiving no training in HSF. Most respondents identified their role as practitioners (41%; n = 50), with 51% (n = 62) listing ASD as their primary area of professional interest. These data resemble trends reported by the BACB (BACB, n.d). Further, 94% (n = 117) of respondents indicated they were not exposed to supervision that focused on competencies in HSF while accruing fieldwork. For supervisory activities, 57% (n = 4) of respondents reported spending less than 10% of their time in HSF contexts. Regarding current supervisory qualifications, 87% (n = 105) of respondents met the supervisor qualifications outlined by the BACB. Additionally, 55% (n = 66) of respondents currently provide behavior analytic supervision, with the majority (57%; n = 69) doing so in contexts related to ASD and related disorders. However, only 2% (n = 3) of respondents currently provide supervision in HSF contexts. These findings highlight a notable shortage of HSF-related training and supervision opportunities within the field of behavior analysis. While most respondents meet the BACB supervisor qualifications and actively provide supervision in ASD contexts, the lack of training and supervision experience in HSF suggests a need for more programs that offer specific opportunities for practical application of behavior analysis in HSF (e.g., internships, fieldwork, practicum).

Table 1.

Respondent characteristics

Characteristic	%
Spanish, Hispanic, or Latino Origin n = 128
Yes	11
No	89
Race/Ethnicity n = 129
White or Caucasian	85
Asian	9
Black or African American	7
Prefer not to Say	3
American Indian/Native American or Alaska Native	2
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	1
Other	1
Age group n = 128
18–24 years old	5
25–34 years old	39
35–44 years old	44
45–54 years old	9
55–64 years old	2
65+ years old	1
Certification Level n = 118
BCaBA	4
BCBA	74
BCBA-D	22
Graduate Degree n = 122
In-person	60
Online	26
Blended	14
Graduate Training in HSF n = 122
No training	64
Coursework/assignments	20
Thesis/dissertation/capstone	15
Research assistant	11
Practicum experience	7
Other	4
Current Professional Designation n = 122
Practitioner	41
Educator/faculty	19
Administrator	16
Student	13
Researcher	7
Other	4
Primary Professional Emphasis n = 122
Autism spectrum disorder	51
Intellectual or developmental disabilities	12
Higher education	9
Education	6
Organizational Behavior Management (OBM)	5
Clinical behavior analysis	4
Non-university research	2
Corrections and delinquency	2
Behavioral pediatrics	2
Parent and caregiver training	2
Sports and Fitness	2
Behavioral gerontology	1
Public policy and advocacy	1
Dissemination of behavior analysis	1
Prefer not to answer	1
Supervision competencies in HSF while accruing fieldwork n = 109
Yes	6
No	94
Supervisory activities in HSF during supervisory period n = 7
0%	0
Less than 10%	5
10–19%	14
20–29%	14
30–39%	14
40–49%	0
50–59%	0
60–69%	0
70–79%	0
80–89%	0
90–99%	0
100%	0
Currently meeting supervisor qualifications outlined by BACB n = 121
Yes	87
No	13
Currently provide behavior analytic supervision n = 121
Yes	55
No	45
Currently provide supervision in contexts of ASD and related disorders n = 121
Yes	57
No	43
Currently provide supervision in contexts of HSF n = 121
Yes	2
No	98

Responses to six questions related to professional development in HSF are depicted in Table 2. Most respondents (91%; n = 110) indicated that they do not currently practice behavior analysis in HSF, their primary undergraduate major or minor did not include a specialization in HSF (92%; n = 112), and 60% (n = 73) reported not engaging in HSF professional development during the last certification cycle. Of those who did participate, the most common activity was reading journals, with 69% (n = 33) of respondents selecting this option. This suggests that while some behavior analysts seek independent learning opportunities, structured training in HSF remains limited. Furthermore, 36% (n = 43) reported sometimes seeking professional development opportunities in HSF, while 23% (n = 23) reported never, 20% (n = 20) rarely, 17% (n = 20) often, and 5% (n = 5) always. These findings indicate that although some practitioners engage in self-directed learning, formalized training and consistent professional development in HSF appear to be lacking. When examining the completion of HSF continuing education (CE) credits, 48% (n = 23) of respondents reported completing less than 10% of their CE credits in HSF. This suggests that limited professional development opportunities may be contributing to low engagement in HSF practice.

Table 2.

Professional development experience in HSF

Characteristic	%
Current professional practice in HSF n = 121
Yes	9
No	91
Undergraduate Primary or Secondary Specialization in HSF n = 122
Yes	8
No	92
Seek out HSF professional development n = 121
Never	23
Rarely	20
Sometimes	36
Often	17
Always	5
Participation in HSF professional development during last full certification cycle n = 122
Yes	40
No	60
HSF professional development activities n = 48
Read journals	69
Attended virtual presentations	58
Attended state conferences	42
Attended national conferences	33
Attended events hosted by HSF Special Interest Group	27
Presented at professional conferences	17
Attended workshops	15
Attended international conferences	10
Participated in journal club	10
Other	6
Completion of HSF continuing education credits during last full certification cycle n = 48
0%	2
Less than 10%	48
10–19%	23
20–29%	17
30–39%	4
40–49%	2
50–59%	4
60–100%	0

Participants also responded to questions pertaining to experience and practice in domains of HSF (see Table 3). These questions were administered to respondents who selected “Yes” to practicing behavior analysis in HSF. Of these respondents, 60% (n = 6) reported being self-employed, and 55% (n = 6) reported using self-pay as their primary funding source. This suggests that employment opportunities in HSF may be limited, leading many practitioners to establish independent practices. Further, the respondents reported that their primary consumers were adults (82%; n = 9), and of those respondents, 56% (n = 5) work with adults with disabilities, 44% (n = 4) work with neurotypical adults, and 33% (n = 3) work with adult athletes. Additionally, 36% (n = 4) of respondents work with child consumers, and of those consumers, 100% (n = 4) are individuals with disabilities, and 50% (n = 2) are neurotypical individuals. When asked about consumer goals, 45% (n = 5) of respondents selected to improve health or fitness and to develop leisure skills as a personal preference. Additionally, when conducting assessments with consumers, 100% (n = 11) of respondents selected descriptive assessments, 73% (n = 8) of respondents selected indirect assessments, 45% (n = 5) of respondents selected formal preference assessments, and 27% (n = 3) of respondents selected functional analyses. When implementing interventions with consumers, 100% (n = 10) of respondents selected goal setting, 90% (n = 9) of respondents selected positive reinforcement contingencies, and 70% (n = 7) of respondents selected verbal or written feedback. Fewer than 20% of respondents (n = 3) selected negative reinforcement and response cost procedures. This pattern suggests a preference for reinforcement-based strategies in HSF interventions, aligning with best practices in behavior analysis. Further, 36% (n = 43) of respondents selected less than 10% of their work time as dedicated to HSF professional development activities, highlighting a potential need for more structured training and CE in this area.

Table 3.

Experience and practice in domains of HSF

Characteristic	%
Previous experience practicing behavior analysis in HSF n = 109
Yes	7
No	93
Employment Status n = 10
Self-employed	60
Hourly	30
Salaried	10
Work time spent in HSF professional development activities n = 11
Less than 10%	36
10–19%	27
20–29%	9
30–39%	9
40–49%	9
50–59%	9
60–69%	0
70–79%	0
80–89%	9
90–99%	0
100%	0
Assessment procedures employed with consumers n = 11
Descriptive assessments	100
Indirect assessments	73
Formal preference assessment	45
Functional analyses	27
Intervention procedures employed with consumers n = 10
Goal setting	100
Positive reinforcement contingencies	90
Verbal or written feedback	70
Self-monitoring via mechanical devices	50
Informational or educational interventions	40
Physical education	30
Graphic feedback	30
Digital or electronic feedback	30
Task clarification	20
Exergaming	20
Negative reinforcement contingencies	20
Response cost	10
Contingency management via mechanical devices	10
Other	10
Food Dudes Program	0
Funding sources utilized n = 11
Self-pay	55
Medicaid	27
Other	18
Medicare	9
Private insurance	9
Flexible spending account	9
Health savings account	0
Health reimbursement arrangement	0
Primary consumers n = 11
Adults (> 18 years of age)	82
Children (< 18 years of age)	36
Adult consumers n = 9
Neurotypical individuals	56
Individuals with disabilities	44
Athletes	33
Child consumers n = 4
Individuals with disabilities	100
Neurotypical individuals	50
Athletes	0
Primary goals of consumers n = 11
Improve health or fitness	45
Develop leisure skills (personal preference)	45
Improve cardiovascular health or fitness	36
Improve strength (personal preference)	36
Improve nutrition or diet (medically necessary)	36
Lose weight (personal preference)	27
Improve nutrition or diet (personal preference)	27
Mental health management (personal preference)	27
Improve athletic performance in a specific sport	27
Develop leisure skills (medically necessary)	18
Mental health management (medically necessary)	18
Lose weight (medically necessary)	9
Improve strength (medically necessary)	9
Aesthetic/cosmetic reasons (improve appearance)	9
Other	0

Interest in and barriers to practicing behavior analysis in HSF were also examined (see Table 4), and among the barriers faced, 54% (n = 35) of respondents reported being unsure how to begin, followed by 42% (n = 27) citing a lack of available jobs. Other barriers included limited resources (32%; n = 21), insufficient funding (29%; n = 19), “other” reasons (20%; n = 13), and lack of interest (2%; n = 1). These findings suggest that practical, logistical, and structural barriers may be the primary factors limiting engagement in HSF practice. When asked about experience, 93% (n = 101) of respondents had no previous experience practicing behavior analysis in HSF. Despite these challenges, interest in practicing behavior analysis in HSF was high, with 60% (n = 66) of respondents expressing interest. This indicates that with increased access to training, resources, and job opportunities, more behavior analysts may be willing to enter this area of practice.

Table 4.

Barriers to and interest in practicing behavior analysis in HSF

Characteristic	%
Barriers to practicing behavior analysis in HSF n = 65
Unsure how to begin	54
Few jobs available	42
Lack of resources	32
Insufficient funding	29
Other	20
Lack of interest	2
Interest in practicing behavior analysis in HSF n = 110
Yes	60
No	40

Discussion

The general findings from this study show that most respondents have little to no experience practicing behavior analysis in HSF. Many want to obtain experience, however, barriers such as uncertainty about how to begin, limited job opportunities, and lack of access to training, mentorship, and funding stand in the way. To foster greater engagement and generate interest in HSF, members of ABAI established the HSF SIG. The aim of this group is to disseminate information regarding HSF to BCBAs and non-BCBAs. In 2021, the HSF SIG reported a 400% increase in membership from the previous 4 years, thus highlighting the increase in interest in practicing in these areas (Slowiak, 2021). However, when respondents were asked in the current survey if they were members of the HSF SIG, 79% (n = 96) indicated they were not. Thus, although there has been an increase in interest in recent years, the number of interested behavior analysts remains small.

These results align with concerns cited by others in the literature that, despite calls for BCBAs to branch out beyond ASD and other related disorders (Alligood & Gravina, 2020; Friman, 2010; Normand & Kohn, 2013; Poling, 2010), the practice of ABA remains concentrated in these areas. This suggests that there may be a persistent disconnect between advocacy efforts that promote diversification of behavior analytic practice and the actual expansion into alternative domains. Nonetheless, these results provide further evidence that few behavior analysts are practicing in HSF, and few have been able to access the necessary training and practical experiences needed to do so successfully (BACB, n.d).

Professional Development in HSF

Most respondents reported having no undergraduate specialization in HSF and no graduate training in HSF. If graduate training was assigned, it was mostly limited to coursework or assignments rather than hands-on experience. Research opportunities and practical experience, such as internships or fieldwork specific to HSF, were among the least frequently reported forms of training. Thus, it is not surprising that most respondents do not practice in HSF. The lack of direct, applied training in HSF suggests that most practitioners enter the field without substantial experience and limited scope of competence to practice in this area. This is a critical point considering the risks to practicing outside of one’s own scope of competence, including poor outcomes and risk to consumers, deleterious effects on the practitioner, disciplinary action from relevant regulatory bodies, and the possibility of future litigation, loss of funding, and damage to the field (see Brodhead et al., 2018 for a discussion).

The low number of practitioners reporting exposure to practical or research-based training could indicate a need for more comprehensive HSF-focused curricula within graduate programs to better prepare behavior analysts for a professional emphasis in this area. However, expanding curricula is likely to be a significant obstacle, because many ABA graduate programs are designed to meet accreditation and certification standards, leaving little room for additional coursework. Additionally, faculty expertise in this area may limit the opportunity to develop specialized coursework or practicum opportunities. Collaborative efforts between academic programs, professional associations, and accrediting bodies (e.g., ABAI and APBA) are needed to explore pathways for incorporating HSF competencies in more graduate programs without compromising existing accreditation standards.

Experience and Practice in HSF

Of the respondents who practice behavior analysis in HSF, 41% (n = 50) are practitioners and the majority are self-employed and rely on private as the primary funding source. However, there are other possible payment models HSF practitioners could explore, depending on their qualifications, settings, and client base. Although many practitioners currently operate on a private pay model, other options include employer-sponsored programs (e.g., employee wellness programs or corporate wellness initiatives) which could allow skilled practitioners to be contracted or paid per session and included as part of employee benefit packages. Practitioners who obtain additional certification as a registered dietician or nutritionist, or a health and wellness coach may also find opportunities to provide their services through gyms, online coaching platforms, or membership and subscription models where clients pay a monthly fee for ongoing access to coaching and digital resources. Behavior analysts could work with established medical practices to work with patients referred by physicians for whom medically necessary behavior change (e.g., weight loss, improved fitness, rehabilitation following surgery or injury, compliance with medical regimens) is warranted. Among respondents who reported providing HSF services, neurotypical adults were reported to be the primary consumer. Considering the growing percentage of overweight and obesity and general lack of fitness among children and adults in the United States (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2024a; CDC, 2024b; Troiano et al., 2008), there is a clear need for behavior analysts with training in HSF to address this problem. This could be an entry point for behavior analysts to team with physicians to address an important HSF target.

Although the results of the current study indicate that some behavior analysts have successfully identified avenues to bill for their services in HSF, the current analysis indicates that funding may be a challenge. Future advocacy efforts should focus on establishing broader funding mechanisms for behavior analysis in HSF. Behavior analysts and professional associations at the national, state, and local levels including ABAI, should engage with stakeholders, policymakers, and the public to raise awareness about the types of services behavior analysts with competencies in HSF can provide and build support based on the demonstrated effectiveness of these services. Expanding the number of behavior analysts engaged in advocacy may strengthen these efforts and build a more unified network to drive policy change.

For more behavior analysts to practice behavior analysis in HSF, there is a need for more supervision focused on HSF-related competencies within these domains. Among 55% (n = 66) of respondents who are providing behavior analytic supervision, 57% (n = 69) are providing supervision focused on competencies related to ASD and intellectual disabilities and only 2% (n = 3) are providing supervision that targeted competencies specific to HSF; thus, there is a significant gap in supervision practices that support skill development in HSF. When asked about supervisory activities in the context of HSF, 40% (n = 49) of respondents participated in professional development activities. This highlights a need for expanding supervision opportunities that target HSF-related competencies and represents a missed opportunity to support behavior analysts looking to diversify their practice.

Additionally, the limited number of behavior analysts practicing in HSF may be partly due to challenges accessing and applying research to inform and guide practice in this area. Specifically, researchers are not effectively disseminating practical, evidence-based strategies to practitioners and practitioners are not furthering their scope of competence through access to relevant literature (BACB, 2020, see Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts code 1.06). Scope of competence refers to the proficient performance of professional activities by an individual (Brodhead et al., 2018). Although behavior analysts are required to continually advance their skill repertoire through engagement with the literature, barriers often prevent practitioners from making this a common practice. To address these barriers, research has identified strategies aimed at fostering ongoing professional development (e.g., Briggs & Mitteer, 2021; Carr & Briggs, 2010; Parsons & Reed, 2011). For example, Parsons and Reed (2011) suggest implementing monthly reading groups among practitioners, designed to minimize disruptions to their direct client interactions.

Despite these recommendations, the current study reveals a lack of engagement in HSF-related professional development activities. For instance, only 10% (n = 5) of respondents reported participating in a journal club as part of their professional development. Brodhead et al. (2018) advocate for CE opportunities through presentations and workshops; however, most respondents in the current study reported limited participation in HSF-related professional activities and CE. Specifically, although 40% (n = 49) of respondents reported sometimes seeking HSF-related professional development opportunities, 60% (n = 73) indicated they did not engage in any such activities during their last full certification cycle. Of the 40% who did participate, 69% (n = 33) read journal articles, and all respondents (n = 3) reported that less than 60% of their CE credits were HSF-related during the same period. This highlights a significant gap in the dissemination of HSF-related research to the practice community. To address this, researchers should consider several options such as publishing their findings as open-access and posting research on ResearchGate, LinkedIn, and other social media sites to enable more behavior analysts to access and apply the most current evidence-based treatments in their practice.

This study is not without limitations. Specifically, the sample size was low (N = 142) and may not be representative, especially because the majority of respondents were BCBAs (74%; n = 87). Further, recruitment consisted of social media platforms, university networks, and professional email lists, which may not capture the broader population of behavior analysts, especially those outside academia or who are not active on social media. Additionally, the largest proportion of respondents were from Florida (20%; n = 26), which may skew the results toward regional trends in behavior analysis practice and interest in HSF.

Although this survey did not include RBTs, it is important to acknowledge that RBTs represent the largest and fastest-growing group in behavior analysis practice (BACB, n.d). Given their significant role, it is important to address foundational training and exposure to HSF domains earlier in their academic and professional development. Starting at the undergraduate level, programs could integrate coursework and practical experiences that emphasize applications of behavior analysis in HSF, given that many RBTs take undergraduate coursework as trainees to become BCaBAs. Notably, 92% (n = 112) of respondents in this survey reported that their bachelor’s degree did not include a primary or secondary specialization in HSF or any additional degree in this area. This highlights a need for undergraduate programs to introduce HSF-focused content and experiences, allowing future professionals to be equipped to practice behavior analysis in these domains.

This survey study examined the number of behavior analysts practicing in HSF, and the training and supervisory experiences, types of practice activities, and barriers to practicing in HSF. Although the sample size was small and perhaps not representative, these findings suggest a lack of HSF representation in behavior analytic graduate programs which leads to inexperience and a paucity of competent practitioners in these domains. Organizations such as the HSF SIG should continue their efforts to disseminate information, advocate for additional funding mechanisms for HSF service provision, and provide accessible resources to practitioners interested in entering HSF domains. For example, publishing research findings as open access to bridge the gap between research and practice. Further, future research should investigate how undergraduate training can influence interest and competency in HSF, particularly for RBTs and BCaBAs transitioning into higher certification roles.

Appendix

Survey Items

Author Contribution

All authors contributed to the study conceptualization, background research, data analysis and reporting, and manuscript writing.

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Declarations

Consent to Participate

All participants provided their consent.

Ethics Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts and the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.