Defining Collaborative Practices in Behavior Analysis

Abstract

Collaboration is a fundamental practice across various disciplines, including education and school-based services such as special education (McLeskey et al., 2017), speech-language pathology (ASHA, 2024), school psychology (NASP, 2020), social work (NASW, 2012), and applied behavior analysis (BACB, 2020; BACB, 2022). This study examined how behavior analysts describe and engage in collaborative practices in school settings, analyzing qualitative data from 253 survey responses. Four primary themes emerged: (1) valuing the expertise of all team members, including families; (2) focusing on student-centered activities aligned with goals; (3) communicating respectfully and working together; and (4) making data-based decisions. Two secondary themes highlighted challenges to collaboration. Findings address a gap in the literature that examines the Board Certified Behavior Analysts’ (BCBAs) reported collaborative practices in school settings and suggest the following implications:

• The generalist nature of BCBA preparation training may influence how behavior analysts describe and engage in collaborative practices within school settings.

• Existing definitions of collaboration can provide beneficial guidance for how to further articulate the scope of competence of behavior analysts who work within a range of employment settings, including schools.

• Targeted preservice and continuing education requirements and opportunities for interprofessional education and collaboration that focus on unique skills and perspectives within employment settings, including schools, could improve behavior analysts’ partnerships.

• Articulating the roles and challenges of behavior analysts employed within schools could help guide conceptually systematic behavior analytic collaborative practices in those settings.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-025-01089-2.

Collaborative Practices Described by Behavior Analysts

Many disciplines, including education, agree that academic and social-emotional outcomes of young children and older students can better be addressed by a collaborative team rather than a single individual (Anderson, 2013; Bowman et al., 2021; Kelly & Tincani, 2013). Collaboration is a key interdisciplinary team process to practice when providing individualized services and support to children receiving special education services. In educational contexts, team members bring different experiences, expertise, and strengths that can be combined to provide services that lead to more positive outcomes for students (Brodhead, 2015). Successful collaborative practice requires vision, cooperation, and shared decision-making (Martin, 2005) among members. Even though the number of members can vary, the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team must include key advocates, educators, administrators who approve resources, monitor academic curriculum and who supervise educators, an individual with specific expertise to interpret evaluation results, related service providers, and the student receiving the services, when determined appropriate (U.S. Department of Education, 2004; IDEIA 34 C.F.R. § 300.321).

Depending on specific behavioral support needs of the student and the current expertise of other team members, Board Certified Behavior Analysts (BCBAs) may have the opportunity to collaborate with the IEP team and contribute possible solutions based on the principles of applied behavior analysis (ABA) to understand and address student’s behavioral needs (Brodhead, 2015; Vladescu et al., 2022). Schools have recently reported concerns about an increasing number of students who demonstrate behavior that challenges classroom teachers. There is also some evidence of a shortage of school personnel with adequate behavior management training to support students with higher behavior needs such as special education teachers (Berry et al., 2012), school psychologists (Hendricker et al., 2022), and behavior analysts (Zhang & Cummings, 2020). This shortage may be reflected in a recent increase in the US employment demand for behavior analysts as evidenced by the number of job postings in schools for school personnel who have the BCBA credential (BACB, 2023).

The wealth of expertise within interdisciplinary teams provides the potential for a higher quality behavior support plan for students with behavioral needs (Donaldson & Strahmer, 2014; Kelly & Tincani, 2013; Kunze & Machalicek, 2021) than those developed by a single professional. Differences in philosophical underpinnings and scopes of practice among team members may, however, pose several challenges for teams as they determine the best way to collaborate effectively (Bowman et al., 2021; LaFrance et al., 2019; Slim & Reuter-Yuill, 2021). The way each team member conceptualizes and defines collaborative practice from their personal perspective or respective field can affect how a team functions. All team members, including behavior analysts, could benefit from utilizing an interprofessional collaborative framework of practice put forth by the Interprofessional Education Collaborative (IPEC, 2016) and adopting a culturally humble stance on the interdependency of team members and their respective approaches (Kirby et al., 2022; Neuringer, 1991; Wright, 2019). The role of BCBAs in schools varies widely across states and school districts. Some districts contract with community BCBAs and other districts have chosen to create an internal BCBA position.

Despite recent attention given to school-based BCBAs within the literature (Layden et al., 2024; Light-Shriner et al., 2023; Vladescu et al., 2022), there is currently a lack of research to determine the extent to which BCBAs are employed within school districts and the exact nature of their collaborative practices within IEP teams. Working in school settings and with a school team may require different skills than within a private community clinic. Collaborative skills that involve demonstrating respectful and humble interactions with other disciplines, the ability to appreciate and validate a range of approaches to address a common goal, and skills related to building trust and appreciation among team members (Brodhead, 2015; Kirby et al., 2022) may be essential for successful practice.

Definitions of collaboration found in the literature include many similar concepts but vary in detail and scope. Friend and Cook (2013) proposed that collaboration is a unique professional style of interaction between people who voluntarily make joint decisions while working on a common goal (p. 6). Key components included voluntary interactions, equal contribution, mutual goals, sharing responsibility, resources and accountability for outcomes (Friend & Cook, 2013). Knackendoffel et al. (2018) defined collaboration as “to labor together, or to work jointly in cooperative interaction to achieve a shared goal” (p. 6). They further articulated that collaborative consultation occurs when educators, students, and support personnel “combine their knowledge and expertise to determine the student’s educational needs, plan learning and behavioral goals, implement the plan, assess outcomes, and follow-up as needed” (Knackendoffel et al., 2018, p. 7). Kelly and Tincani (2013) provided the following definition of collaboration to their survey participants “a component of consultation involving voluntary, interpersonal interactions comprising two or more professionals engaging in communication modalities (face-to-face meetings, email, alternate means of feedback, etc.) for the purposes of shared decision-making and problem solving toward a common goal. Collaboration results in changes to tasks and solutions that would not have been achieved in isolation” (Kelly & Tincani, 2013, p. 124).

Professionals have embraced a range of collaborative models as theoretical frameworks for their work on collaborative teams. Bronstein (2003) described a model of interdisciplinary collaboration from a social work perspective (Bronstein, 2003), with five core elements (interdependence, newly created professional activities, flexibility, collective ownership of goals, reflection on the collaborative process). These elements illustrated how goals could be more successfully achieved together than individually. Influences that facilitate or pose challenges to collaboration were also described within this model (professional role, structural characteristics, personal characteristics, and a history of collaboration) (Bronstein, 2003). If team members do not have a strong sense of their role, have a caseload volume that conflicts with their time and skills, do not have mutual respect, and have not had opportunities to work together in the past, interdisciplinary collaboration may prove unsuccessful in a range of settings, including schools.

Slim and Reuter-Yuill (2021) described the applicability of the World Health Organization’s Framework for Action on Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice (WHO, 2010) and the Core Competencies for Interprofessional Collaborative Practice (IPEC, 2016). Understanding the continuum of collaborative models that have existed in school settings may provide context to the need for behavior analysts to have greater flexibility within their collaborative skills. On one end of the continuum, teams may utilize a multidisciplinary model, where discipline related information is shared, members have discipline-specific autonomy, but consensus on actions and treatment plans developed by individual team members is not required. Teams may also utilize an interdisciplinary team model that is more focused on cooperation among members. Discipline specific assessments may be conducted, information exchanged, and intervention plans discussed with all team members and consensus on treatment is reached but professionals may still implement their own discipline-specific intervention. A transdisciplinary collaborative model or approach shifts to team members providing services in a cooperative and interchangeable manner rather than assigning services to a specific discipline. This requires substantial coordination across team members to ensure competency and treatment fidelity (Bowman et al., 2021; Slim & Reuter-Yuill, 2021). Finally, interprofessional models of collaboration strive to align ethical standards, values, preferences, and openness across team members. “These agreed-upon principles provide a code of conduct and constitute the basis for a shared language, motivation, and contingencies that guide practitioners” (Slim & Reuter-Yuill, 2021, p. 1240). Core competencies within the IPEC Framework such as values and ethics, roles and responsibilities, interprofessional communication, teams and teamwork (Slim & Reuter-Yuill, 2021) allow for team members to work as valued community members who are interdependent to reach desired outcomes.

Behavior analysts have a professional responsibility to “Identify and apply interpersonal and other skills (e.g., accepting feedback, listening actively, seeking input, collaborating) to establish and maintain professional relationships” (E.8) within the BCBA Test Content Outline (TCO; BACB, 2022). This expectation and responsibility has not been specifically defined within the test content outline or ethical codes. As a result, the interpretation of collaborating may be up to the individual behavior analyst. It is not completely clear how behavior analysts develop their understanding of collaborative practice and build a scope of competence in the necessary collaborative skills within school settings and interdisciplinary teams (Brodhead, 2015; Slim & Reuter-Yuill, 2021). It is likely that behavior analysts are trained within discipline silos where there are no or few opportunities to learn and collaborate with individuals from other professions (Bowman et al., 2021). This can result in a professional having narrower views of successful collaborative practice and a limited appreciation of other team members’ professional approach. Even though progress has been made in identifying key sub-competencies for the core competencies of the IPEC model (Slim & Reuter-Yuill, 2021), additional tools like the collaboration checklist developed by Dowdy et al. (2021) could promote more successful collaborative practice of behavior analysts across a range of employment environments, including schools.

Scholarship has begun to expand traditional definitions of collaboration to the field of behavior analysis. Bowman et al. (2024) defined collaboration as the active and skillful engagement of behavior analysts with professionals from a variety of disciplines (including educators, speech-language pathologists, and psychologists) to meet the multifaceted needs of clients and their families. Friedman et al. (2022) similarly highlighted the role of compassion, shared expertise, and strong communication skills as essential components of effective interdisciplinary collaboration, while also acknowledging systemic training gaps that limit preparation in these areas. Kirby et al. (2022) highlighted the need for professional humility as a foundation for meaningful collaboration and encouraged behavior analysts to recognize the limitations of their own knowledge and value the perspectives of other fields. Practical barriers to collaboration have also been identified; for instance, LaFrance et al. (2019) found that the overuse of technical jargon impedes communication with non-behavioral professionals and advocates for the use of accessible, inclusive language. Slim and Reuter-Yuill (2021) offered a behavior-analytic perspective that operationalized collaboration through behaviors such as empathy, perspective-taking, and reciprocity, emphasizing the need for culturally sensitive and compassionate practices. Collectively, these evolving definitions reflect a broader shift toward interdisciplinary, client-centered, and ethically grounded models of collaboration within the field of ABA.

Purpose of Study

Interprofessional collaboration frameworks and definitions of successful collaborative practices are evident in many cross disciplinary sources in detail. Applied behavior analysis, a discipline that values operational definitions of behavior, has not clearly articulated the collaboration skills or practices within the BCBA TCO (BACB, 2022). Currently, there is limited information or research that describes what collaborative experiences behavior analysts have or how they define successful collaborative practices in employment settings such as schools.

Given this lack of conceptual or definitional clarity surrounding successful collaboration and the increase in BCBAs being employed in school settings, the purpose of this study was to investigate how behavior analysts define successful collaborative practices, to identify emerging themes, and describe the nature of these definitions. Understanding how behavior analysts define their successful collaborative practices in school settings will fill a gap in current literature by providing insight into their role, collaborative experiences, and the skills they perceive to be the most important in their unique role.

Method

A qualitative research design was chosen to explore how behavior analysts define successful collaborative practices in school settings. This approach was best suited to the study’s purpose of identifying emerging themes and describing the nature of these definitions from the perspectives of practitioners. Qualitative methods allow for the in-depth examination of participants’ experiences, beliefs, and professional interpretations, which are not easily captured through quantitative instruments. Given the study’s focus on understanding how behavior analysts conceptualize and articulate collaboration within the unique context of school-based practice, a qualitative design enabled the generation of rich, descriptive data and provided insight into a previously underexplored aspect of the field.

Positionality

Our research team consisted of two faculty members who identified as white and female and employed by two different universities in Midwestern states within the United States. We both had active BCBA-D certifications at the time of this study. The first author led quantitative data analysis and both authors were equally involved in qualitative analysis of participant responses. We collectively had more than 30 years of experience working with individuals with behavioral challenges and support staff in a range of settings. We also had expertise in conducting functional behavioral assessments, implementing functional-based behavioral interventions, and collaborating with teams in schools. Both authors have ongoing communication and professional relationships with behavior analysts employed by school systems and within private agencies. Through these experiences, we understand that a behavior analyst is one part of a larger network of support for students with disabilities and behavioral problems and have appreciation and respect for the expertise of other disciplines and families who support individuals with behavioral challenges.

The first author has held a position as senior BCBA in an agency that provides ABA services, had an instructor position within higher education, and supervised BCBA trainees in a range of settings including in both public and private schools, clinics, in-home services, and residential settings. The second author provided technical assistance to teams within adult service and school settings, provided social skills interventions to groups with autism spectrum disorders, and has worked in higher education training future special education teachers for many years while developing a professional support network for school-employed BCBAs that meet regularly to discuss training needs, challenges, and to share resources and advice.

Our varied experiences, perspectives, and research methodology expertise was valuable for reflexivity, understanding, and addressing potential bias. As qualitative research relies heavily on researchers’ interpretation of data, reflexivity is crucial in ensuring the credibility and trustworthiness of the findings by openly addressing potential biases introduced by the researchers. During the data analysis process, we engaged in debriefing to determine where biases may be playing a part in their interpretations of responses. Additionally, we engaged in methodological reflexivity throughout the process in which we reflected on the research design and methods chosen and how each of us might affect the results. This provided us with the opportunity to make changes to our process as we underwent data analysis such as multiple rounds of independent coding prior to finalizing codes.

Sampling and Administration Procedures

A convenience sampling procedure was used to send the survey tool to BCBAs who worked or had worked within school settings via the mass email system that was available from the Behavior Analyst Certification Board (BACB). More details about the administration procedures used can be found in Light-Shriner et al. (2023).

Participants

Data were collected between September 2020 and January 2021. At the time of data collection, there were 33,683 certificants on the BACB certificant list that was used to distribute the survey. The survey was sent to 19,256 subscribers of the BACB email list. There were 2662 unique opens of the message (13.83% of all recipients). Of these openings, 441 participants completed the survey giving a response rate of 2.29%. To be able to complete the survey, participants must have consented to participation, have been a BCBA or BCBA-D, and have worked in a public school during their career. All other respondents were excluded.

Of 441 participants, 253 responded to the open-ended question regarding providing a definition of successful collaboration. A majority of this group of participants identified as female at the time of the survey (n= 212, 83.79%), White (n= 204, 80.63%), and under the age of 50 (n = 192, 79.8%). The majority of the participants reported their role as practitioner (n= 173, 73.62%). Additional demographic information can be found in supplemental materials.

Survey Instrument

A cross-sectional survey was developed to answer the research questions proposed using Qualtrics Survey Software^TM. Questions were designed as closed-ended, multiple choice with one response, checklist with multiple responses, checklist with one option, and Likert scale. In addition to the demographic data items, the survey included an additional 32 questions that could be arranged into six categories (1) Role in the School Setting, (2) Cross Disciplinary Regulation Awareness, (3) Perceived Climate and Acceptance of BCBAs in School Settings, (4) BCBA Preparation Coursework, (5) BCBA Preparation Supervision, (6) Collaboration Definition. We developed the closed ended survey questions in collaboration with a team of researchers to ensure that statistical data could be obtained. The data obtained with these categorical questions were not used in this study but have been reported elsewhere (Light-Shriner et al., 2023). Demographic information, however, as well as the final open-ended survey question “How would you define successful collaboration within the school?” from the cross-sectional survey have been used in the current study. Prior to sending out the survey, the instrument was piloted with three BCBAs with experience in schools. These BCBAs completed the survey and then also provided feedback on readability, relevance, and terminology. We reviewed the feedback that was provided and made relevant changes with full agreement.

Data Analysis

We conducted an inductive analysis wherein we, as the researchers, immersed ourselves in the data to discover important patterns and themes. We utilized a qualitative thematic approach that incorporated a six-phase approach which consisted of (1) becoming familiar with the data, (2) creating initial codes, (3) looking for themes, (4) reviewing themes, (5) defining themes, and (6) synthesizing the results and producing the report (Braun & Clarke, 2012). Each of the six phases of this process has been organized and explained using action steps within Table 1. A narrative explanation of the process is available within supplementary materials. It is important to note that these action steps guide the reader to the qualitative code development and key concepts in Table 2, the final code book in Table 3, and the six overarching themes of this study in Table 4.

Table 1.

Qualitative data analysis phases

Data Analysis Phases (Braun & Clarke, 2012)
Phase 1	• Independently reviewed and became familiar with participants’ responses (i.e., Response was reviewed multiple times). • Independently made notes about responses that seemed unclear.
Phase 2	• Examined each response separately and conducted a content analysis process (whereby meanings within the responses were identified). • Independently created representative codes (single words or short phrases) for meanings of each participant response. • Each set of level 1 representative codes were recorded on a secure electronic spreadsheet. (i.e., 15 codes were identified by the first author and 10 codes were identified by the second author). Level 1 codes and can be found on Table 1. • Met and conducted axial coding which consists of discussing the similarities and differences found in the level 1 codes (two sets of initial codes). • Identified and examined the relationships between each reviewer codes and merged codes that had a common relation or similar meanings. • Reached consensus on which codes to include, change, or exclude from the final code list. Level 2 codes were agreed on (i.e.. 12 axial codes or level 2 codes) and included in the final codebook. These are also found in Table 1. • Met and operationally defined the final codes. The codebook (i.e., Final codes and definitions) can be found in Table 2. •Using the codebook and via the content analysis process, independently reviewed participant responses and assigned code(s) to each response. •Met, reviewed, and compared the two sets of independently coded responses using the constant comparative method (i.e., analyze, compare, and reflect) and reached consensus on the code(s) to assign to participants’ responses. These responses are referred to as level 2 or axial codes and can be found in Table 1.
Phase 3	• Met and reviewed final level 2 codes and looked for and discussed emerging concepts when codes were combined or clustered together. • Using the constant comparative method, reviewers reached consensus on emerging key concepts. Agreed upon key concepts are found in Table 1.
Phase 4	• Using the level 2 codes and key concepts in Table 1, reviewers examined and discussed the key concepts areas and articulated them further into broader meaningful themes that represented our interpretations of the intentions of the respondents and the participants’ responses. Agreement was reached on six main themes which can be found on Table 3.
Phase 5	• Met, reviewed and developed definitions that broadly describe the data they represented for each of the six main themes. These definitions can be found on Table 3. • Respondent data was sorted into the six main themes, reviewed, and consensus was reached. Then representative quotes were identified for each theme.
Phase 6	• Reviewed previously defined themes and ensured all data was synthesized into a comprehensive report. After each meeting, reviewers synthesized results to assure that all themes connected in a logical representative way.

Table 2.

Axial coding

Level 1 codes		Level 2 codes	Combined codes concept areas
Researcher 1	Researcher 2	Axial codes	Codes related to final themes
Student-benefit focus/student success	Communication	Communication	Expertise of others involving cross discipline collaboration and family involvement
Organized – communication	Consensus	Consensus	Student-benefit focus and Goal oriented
Rapport	Cross Disciplinary	Cross Discipline	Working together with consensus and respectful communication
Individual recommendations	Evidence based plans	Data-based	Data based plan development/intervention
Communication	Expertise	Expertise of others	Negative comments on collaboration and negative comments on school environments
Support	Disgruntled comments	Feelings of disrespect	Us/them view of collaboration
Research based	Goals	Goal oriented
Data-based	Family involved	Parent/family involved
Strategies	Student focused	Plan development/intervention
Feelings of disrespect	Working together	Respect
Problem solving		Student-benefit focus/student success
Plan development		Working together
Consensus
Goal oriented
Expertise of others

This table illustrates the progression from initial codes to axial codes, showing how researchers grouped related ideas into broader categories. These axial codes were then used to construct the final themes, offering a clear path from raw data to key findings

Table 3.

Final code book

Code	Keywords
Communication	Organization (structured, clear, scheduled, frequent), Clear communication, sharing ideas, flexibility used to communicate, finding common ground for terms, can give and take feedback professionally.
Consensus	Agree, Compromise, stand behind a decision, consensus for next steps, compromise without reducing quality or ethical obligations.
Cross discipline	Building multi-disciplinary teams, cross disciplines represented, interdisciplinary, incorporating strategies and goals of others, understanding roles and backgrounds of “others”- various “professions” or “disciplines” specifically stated or identified.
Data-based	Data-based, research based, evidence based.
Expertise of others	Specific expressed appreciation of expertise of others mentioned (other than BCBAs).
Feelings of disrespect	Collaboration is a problem in our district, snarky and judgmental comments.
Goal oriented	Goal driven, Goal oriented, Goals are specifically mentioned - working toward congruent goals, working toward common goal.
Parent/family involved	Parents/family are heard, parents/family are specifically mentioned, parents/family are identified, and their involvement is mentioned.
Plan development/intervention	Plan development, recommending (assessment) and interventions, range or variety of strategies and interventions are used.
Respect	Mutual respect, Respectful engagement --both ways, receptive, open, receptive to ideas, reflective listening to all ideas, respect for boundaries and crossing boundaries, strong rapport mentioned, building rapport, building relationships, relationships, mentioned, trust, building trust, ensuring strong rapport with the staff before.
Student-benefit focus/student success	Maximal benefit to the student, for the benefit of the client, positive outcomes for client, benefits to stakeholders.
Working together	Working together to determine best strategies for client, discussing strategies and limitations of the environment, determining directions, mutually beneficial, collaborative, shared effort, everyone understanding and following interventions for behavior reduction and skill acquisition., consistency and follow through, support of team members, support role, finding ways to work within and around various situations without making things and us versus them problem, strategic problem solving.

These are the same axial codes from Table 2 with included keywords

Table 4.

Themes

Theme	Definition
Theme 1: Collaboration means valuing the expertise of all team members including families.	Expertise, cross discipline, family involvement: Successful collaboration involves recognizing and respecting the unique expertise that each team member brings, including that of families.
Theme 2: Collaboration focuses on activities that benefit the student and works toward identified or defined goals.	Student-benefit focus and Goal oriented: Successful collaboration centers on actions that directly support the student and align with clearly defined goals.
Theme 3: Collaboration involves all team members respectfully communicating and working together on agreed upon activities.	Working together, consensus, communication, respect: Successful collaboration requires all team members to engage in respectful communication and jointly carry out mutually agreed-upon tasks.
Theme 4: Collaboration involves making data-based decisions on plan development and best practice interventions.	Data based, plan development/intervention: Successful collaboration entails using data to guide decision-making in developing plans and selecting evidence-based interventions.
Theme 5: Collaboration poses challenges for behavior analysts who have had negative experiences in school settings and do not feel included on the team.	Negative comments on collaboration, negative comments on school environments: Successful collaboration can be challenging for behavior analysts who have experienced exclusion or negative interactions in school settings, leading to feelings of being undervalued as team members.
Theme 6: Collaboration can be challenging when the behavioral analytic viewpoint is not easily accepted by other team members and/or when other team members’ recommend approaches that are not perceived compatible with the behavior analytic approach.	Us/them: Successful collaboration can be difficult when the behavior-analytic perspective is not readily accepted by other team members or when recommended approaches conflict with behavior-analytic principles.

Trustworthiness

To ensure trustworthiness and credibility in the qualitative analysis process, we utilized multiple measures. The first was peer debriefing. As researchers, we both have extensive experience in the fields of behavior analysis and special education and debriefed following each step of the analytic process to mitigate researcher or individual bias. Additionally, we utilized multiple measures to ensure dependability including strict methodological documentation in which they detailed the research procedures used at each step of the analytic process as well as the decisions made during the study. Finally, we also kept an audit trail of all research decisions, changes to documentation made, and data analysis process.

Results

Primary Themes

Through the thematic analysis jointly conducted, four primary themes (see Table 4) (themes 1–4) and two secondary themes (themes 5–6) were co-constructed that described how survey participants defined successful collaboration in schools.

Theme 1: Collaboration means valuing the expertise of all team members including families

Many participants defined successful collaboration as interactions that incorporated, respected, and valued the expertise of all team members. This included all potential IEP team members including the student and the families. Participants focused on the value that is added by expertise outside of the field of behavior analysis. This is represented with the following response stating:

• Recognition that each profession brings a level of expertise that is necessary for successful student outcomes. Successful collaboration also means an awareness of one’s own scope of competency in the particular setting. (R-86)

Additionally, responses described a need to respect and incorporate the knowledge, background, and suggestions of other team members within the process and service plans as represented with the following response stating:

• Mutual respect for one another’s skills and insights, and value of each service provided. Willingness to discuss ideas that may relate to one another’s recommendations and make modifications to best suit the client and family. Friendly working relationships and leaving IEPs and other meetings mostly or completely in agreement. (R-224)

In theme 1, many of the participants discussed the need to value the expertise of all team members, including those outside of the field of behavior analysis. This value aligns with wording of other definitions of interdisciplinary collaboration or interdisciplinary teams such as “coequal parties,” “parity among participants,” “trusting other members” (Friend & Cook, 2013), “shared decision making” (Kelly & Tincani, 2013), team members (including parents or home educators) combine or integrate “their knowledge and expertise” (Anderson, 2013; Dillon et al., 2021; Knackendoffel et al., 2018), and “partnership” (Kunze & Machalicek, 2021). By valuing the expertise of each other through the collaborative process, the team can leverage and capitalize on a larger wealth of knowledge and resources to benefit the learner and support team (Byrne & Hansberry, 2007). This allows the team to work as efficiently and effectively as possible with the resources at hand. Participants acknowledged that it is important to also value the expertise that parents, caregivers, and learners bring to the IEP team. The involvement of the student and their families allows for more successful, student-centered IEPs (Reiman et al., 2010) and should be specifically identified as collaborative partners (Knackendoffel et al., 2018). Students who participated in their IEP meetings have been found to have more successful outcomes over time (Barnard-Brak & Lechtenberger, 2010).

Theme 2: Collaboration focuses on activities that benefit the student and work toward identified or defined goals

Definitions of successful collaboration in schools commonly focused on ensuring the activities of the team benefitted the student and were working toward predefined goals. Goal setting and working on planning toward reaching a goal was a common response. Collaboration was defined by one participant as, “Working with an individual or team that has a common goal by forming, storming, norming and performing (R-179).”

Additionally, many responses focused on the idea that whatever happens within the team, the focus should remain on doing whatever is best for the client. One participant said, “There should be respect and understanding from all parts. Nobody should feel superior. There should be lots of communication between all parts. It’s teamwork for the best of the child (R-66)” while another said, “Working together for the common goal of student success while respecting the perspective of all professionals (R-64).”

With the second identified theme, participants addressed the content of successful collaborative interactions. Participants suggested that engaging with team members was most successful when the interactions are focused on improving the well-being of the student and working toward well-defined goals. This idea aligns with wording of other published definitions or descriptions of collaboration such as “work toward a common goal” (Friend & Cook, 2013; Kelly & Tincani, 2013) or “working toward jointly developed goals” or “collective ownership of goals” (Dillon et al., 2021) to “increase meaningful or positive outcomes for students” (Anderson, 2013; Kunze & Machalicek, 2021). By valuing the process of developing and working on agreed upon goals, the partners of the team can have a shared focus and experiences which can also build a stronger working relationship; all important characteristics of interdisciplinary teams (Friend & Cook, 2013; Kunze & Machalicek, 2021).

Theme 3: Collaboration involves all team members respectfully communicating and working together on agreed upon activities

Many participants agreed that communication was key to successful collaboration. Often this communication focused on the sharing of ideas and agreeing upon interventions or activities. One participant said, “Open sharing of ideas and strategies and materials that have been successful or unsuccessful. You know what each other’s goals are and support them and their success” (R-130).

Respect was mentioned by several BCBAs who participated in this study as an important component within team interactions as represented by this response, “All involved feel heard and respected and intervention uses supportive interdisciplinary techniques” (R-149). Additional aspects of successful communication noted by participants included, but were not limited to, respectful and active listening, as well as flexibility as indicated by the following participant’s response:

Successful collaboration encompasses a lot of variables. (1) team members need to respect each other’s discipline, (2) each team member should have their own opportunity to voice their point of view, (3) each member should be an active listener of the others, (4) each member should do their best to take others’ perspectives, and (5) Each member must be able to negotiate and be flexible on final decisions. (R-139)

In theme 3, many participants expressed a value of respectful communication with each other on shared tasks. Feeling respected has occasionally been described by others with phrases like “validating each other’s roles” (Anderson, 2013) and “showing partnership through respect, communication, combined knowledge, and trust” (Kunze & Machalicek, 2021). Specific shared tasks are rarely mentioned in definitions of collaboration beyond working on shared goals. Dillon and colleagues (2021), however, indicated “shared decision-making and practice” and Knackendoffel and colleagues (2018) included “plan learning and behavioral goals, implement the plan, assess outcomes, and follow up as needed” within their descriptions of collaboration.

Theme 4: Collaboration involves making data-based decisions on plan development and best practice interventions

Responses commonly focused on the need for decisions to be based upon data, assessment, and evidence-based practices. Participants stated things such as, “Consistent communication, sharing ideas and data, being open to different science-based strategies” (R-236) and “Agree that all specialties will use evidence-based practices to achieve student/staff/school wide goals” (R-205). Participants also focused on creating plans that were both effective and efficient for the students. One response read, “School and BCBA(s) work together to choose skill acquisition goals or define behaviors for reduction and work together to create a plan to help the child learn in the most efficient way possible that is practical for all parties involved” (R-164).

The fourth theme was touched upon and valued by many BCBA participants when they used words like “sharing ideas and data,” “science-based strategies,” and “evidence-based practices.” Even though others have included the concept of “shared decision making” (Anderson, 2013; Dillon et al., 2021; Friend & Cook, 2013; Kelly & Tincani, 2013) or combining “knowledge and expertise” (Knackendoffel et al., 2018), “data-based decision making” or “evidence-based interventions” rarely appears in published definitions. The value of data-based decisions has been emphasized, however, within the High Leverage Practice 1 (HLP1) for school teams which is titled “Collaboration with professionals to increase student success” (McLeskey et al., 2017, p. 1). Within this section, there is a focus on supporting students in their learning and identifying measurable outcomes, nurturing social and emotional health, and the importance of making decisions based on student data (McLeskey et al., 2017, p. 1).

It is possible that the “data-based” and “evidence-based” focus within a BCBA’s training and experience may have compelled participants in this study to specifically articulate these values within their definition of successful collaboration when working within school settings.

Secondary Themes

In the secondary group of themes described next, participants offered additional information related to personal experiences, perspectives, feelings, or critique within their responses which may have been offered as explanations of their definitions or concerns about their experiences with collaboration within school settings. The next two themes reflect collaboration challenges that BCBAs experienced when working in school settings.

Theme 5: Collaboration poses challenges for behavior analysts who have had negative experiences in school settings and do not feel included on the team

Participants reported having some negative collaboration experiences related to not feeling as though they were a respected and valued member of the school team and a mismatch between the BCBA’s understanding of their own role and other school personnel’s understanding of the role of the BCBA within the team. For example, one participant provided their expectations of how the team should view and respond to recommendations of the behavior analyst on the team in the following response:

Everyone including the principal, teachers, paraprofessionals, SLP, OT, parents etc., all working toward the same goal while collaborating on how to achieve it. Also, when it comes to anything behavioral, the entire treatment team should respect the plans and protocols put in place by the behavior analyst and understand that ultimately our techniques can make their lives/jobs a lot easier. (R209)

Some participants wished that school teams would be more willing to learn about behavior analysis and the role of the behavior analysts in schools to close the collaboration gap. One participant said, “Just be given a voice and have others willing to trust our science and not downplay our roles” (R-105). Another participant wrote:

“I think they are grateful to have someone come in who is willing to take on challenging cases of students who are exhibiting significant behavior problems; however, there is more often than not a huge misunderstanding of what a behavior analyst does and does not do. Most of the time they want someone to take the kids out of their hands and/or fix the problem without wanting to collaborate and work together to improve the child’s behavior. Often teachers see us as a threat as someone that is coming in to tell them how to change the way they are doing their job rather than working together as a team to improve behavior.” (R-61)

Other participants who had had both school roles and BCBA roles reported that this disconnect may occur since behavior analysts are not familiar with the roles and responsibilities of other school staff members. These participants suggested that it was the role of the behavior analyst to learn more about other disciplines to increase teams’ willingness to accept BCBAs.

“I’ve spent 23 years in education as a teacher and an administrator. My history landed my BCBA role and also gives staff buy-in. My predecessors did not have history in education as BCBAs and I am often told they reflected poorly on our field by asking teachers to do things they couldn’t do in the classroom. Creating plans and training specific to educational environment and with trauma informed services are required to collaborate with staff and clients in urban education.” (R-87)

Another participant reported that having previous education and experience in schools prior to becoming a BCBA may make the collaboration process more successful.

“I am fortunate to have been a school psychologist for years before obtaining my BCBA. That helped my standing in the school setting. However, even some school psychs and/or BCBAs do not know how to be part of a team. Communication, respect, and understanding of everyone’s roles and how to collaborate are very important. Coming up with plans with input and agreement are plans that have a chance of getting implemented. Dictating plans rarely works.” (R-230)

Theme 5 (Collaboration poses challenges for behavior analysts who have had negative experiences in school settings and do not feel included on the team) and theme 6 (Collaboration can be challenging when team members feel like the behavioral approach is incompatible or not accepted by the team) differed significantly from the first four themes in that some participants provided unsolicited information about perceived challenges with collaboration between BCBAs and school personnel. The secondary themes seem to reflect experiences that are antithetical to responses that described desired collaborative practice.

A concern of some respondents was that they were not being included within the team process and decisions. This may be directly related to the degree to which they are familiar with the school setting climate, processes, and expertise of other team members. A perception of being included may also be directly related to how the BCBA approaches collaboration. Brodhead (2015) suggested that BCBAs working within interdisciplinary teams have the opportunity and (perhaps) the responsibility to “promote the field of ABA to other members of the interdisciplinary team through their professional interactions” (p. 71) but further indicated that professional interactions would include “maintaining respect” (p. 71) and “understanding the perspective” (p. 71) of other disciplines in order to “earn the trust and partnership” (p. 71) of those disciplines and show the collaborative nature of applied behavior analysis (p. 71). It is unclear, however, when and how BCBAs learn and practice the range of professional interactions that demonstrate the type of collaboration expected in school settings.

Specific training on collaboration and school processes is not required within BCBA preparation. Kelly and Tincani (2013) reported that a majority (67%) of BCBA respondents indicated that they completed no required courses on collaboration or collaborative practices. More recently, Light-Shriner and colleagues (2023) reported that even though BCBAs who work in school settings have roles requiring frequent collaboration with other school personnel, “they have little training or preparation in interdisciplinary collaborative practices” (p. 7).

Theme 6: Collaboration can be challenging when team members feel like the behavioral approach is incompatible or not accepted by the team

Participants noted challenges when working with other disciplines as the other disciplines may not align with the behavior analytic interventions or be conceptually systematic. Many participants viewed non-behavior analytic perspectives as less evidence-based or not data-based. They perceived it was their role to make the recommended interventions from other disciplines to be more behavior analytic through the addition of data collection methods or additional training for team members on behavioral principles. This contradicted the projected value discussed within theme 1 that teams are more productive when they value the expertise of each team member. For example, one participant stated the following:

As a behavior analyst, we always look at the data to see if interventions are having the desired effect. When working with other professionals who have suggestions that may not be behavior analytic in nature, I try to add a behavior analytic lens to it and offer a data collection method to determine the interventions effectiveness. Then when we come back together to examine progress, we can all look objectively at the data and it’s not a “you said/I said” contest. Typically, I get buy-in from other professionals this way as well. (R-30)

Some participants offered a conflicting viewpoint by valuing collaboration but then staying focused on ways other disciplines’ approaches may not be compatible with behavior analytic approaches. There was a common idea that team members needed to stay within their specialty as is illustrated in the following quotes: “A team that values and respects what each discipline has to offer the client and a team that primarily stays within their disciplinary lane however effectively collaborates when the disciplinary lanes do intersect” (R-199). The sixth and final theme was “Collaboration can be challenging when team members feel like the behavioral approach is incompatible or not accepted by the team.” This theme may directly align with the issues discussed in theme 1 in that participants understand that collaboration is most successful when the expertise of others is valued. In these responses, however, they did not feel that their expertise as BCBAs was valued by other team members. Instead, they felt that their expertise and behavior analysis as a field was not seen as valuable by the other team members. Being questioned about recommendations may “erode professional relationships” (pp. 70, 71) as discussed by Brodhead (2015).

Additionally, responses that fell under this theme indicated that often the behavior analytic approach was incompatible with the approaches used by other team members and this made collaboration difficult. This may be directly related to some of the concepts BCBAs are taught in school or a result of being educated within a “discipline-centric” manner (Kirby et al., 2022, p. 135). In many coursework sequences, significant time is spent covering the seven dimensions of ABA (Baer et al., 1968). Students are taught that all their professional work should be based upon these seven dimensions. This is reiterated in the ethical code in code 2.01 Providing Effective Treatment which states that the services BCBAs provide must be conceptually consistent with behavioral principles and based on scientific evidence. It goes further and states, “Behavior analysts implement nonbehavioral services with clients only if they have the required education, formal training, and professional credentials to deliver such services (BACB, 2020, p.10).” This theme is reiterated similarly in codes 2.13, 2.14, and 5.03. When taught to students of behavior analysis, such a focus on being conceptually systematic may cause them to struggle when working on interdisciplinary teams where non-behavior analytic interventions are suggested. They may believe that they cannot be part of the team if they are implementing non-behavior analytic interventions. It may also cause some BCBAs to view the approaches of other disciplines as not valuable or incompatible as they are not conceptually systematic with behavioral principles.

It should also be noted that while collaboration is certainly valuable within the school setting and required by the code of ethics (code 2.10; BACB, 2020), collaboration may also cause issues in terms of fidelity to behavior analytic principles as well as adherence to the ethical code. Team members may suggest interventions that are not data-based or may cause behaviors to increase which could result in harm to the student or others. Allowing these interventions to be implemented would pose ethical issues for the behavior analyst and directly impact the behavior analyst’s ability to be effective. Special consideration should be given to the wording in code 2.10 that states “Behavior analysts address conflicts by compromising when possible and always prioritizing the best interest of the client (BACB, 2020, pg.11).” Behavior analysts should consider when compromise is safe and appropriate and when it might not be best for their students.

Discussion

The thematic analysis revealed a complex depiction of how behavior analysts define and experience collaboration within school settings. Four primary themes emerged, reflecting participants’ emphasis on shared expertise, student-centered goals, respectful communication, and data-based decision-making. These themes align with widely accepted definitions of interdisciplinary collaboration while highlighting the unique lens of behavior analysts. Two secondary themes revealed underlying tensions in school-based collaboration, including challenges related to role misalignment and perceived incompatibility between behavioral approaches and those of other disciplines. Taken together, these findings illustrate both the aspirational values and pragmatic barriers BCBAs encounter in collaborative environments, offering insight into the interplay between disciplinary fidelity and team-based practice.

Recommendations

The thematic analysis led us to create three recommendations for the behavior analysts in schools as well as those responsible for preparing future behavior analysts to consider. These recommendations can be found in Table 5. The first recommendation suggests that we as a field should further investigate our scope of competence and ethical considerations related to collaborative practices in a range of professional employment settings. This recommendation came from explorations of themes 2 and 4. Theme 2 suggests that successful collaboration focuses on benefitting the students being served or supported and working toward defined goals. We are required ethically to provide effective treatment and to advocate for the best outcomes for our clients. This implies that we must engage in successful collaboration if it leads to successful outcomes for our clients. Theme 4 highlights the use of data and best practices when collaborating which is where we must consider our scope. There may be non-behavioral interventions that are best practice and most beneficial for our clients but are not directly within our scope of competence or training.

Table 5.

Recommendations for collaborative practice of behavior analysts

Recommendations
1. Considering the wide range of existing cross-discipline definitions of collaboration, further articulation of the scope of competence and ethical considerations related to collaborative practices in a range of professional employment settings could be beneficial.
2. Promoting continuing education opportunities and microcredentials related to roles and responsibilities of behavior analysts in schools would promote successful collaborative experiences and partnerships.
3. More carefully investigating and defining the collaborative role of behavior analysts can better articulate conceptually systematic behavior analytic practices in school settings.

Our second recommendation involves multiple parts. The first is for the BACB and the Association for Behavior Analysis International (ABAI) to consider embedding specific requirements within the BCBA preparation courses, the test content outline, and field work requirements that increase competency and provide sufficient experiences related to interprofessional collaboration in a range of settings. These experiences would provide new BCBAs with essential background knowledge and experience to step into the appropriate collaborative role. Additionally, the BACB should consider requiring specific training for BCBAs who plan to work in schools or with school-aged individuals, including obtaining a specific amount of training from an experienced BCBA with expertise within school settings and continuing education units related to collaboration with school teams. This may be something like the recently proposed microcredentials from ABAI (Johnson, 2024). This recommendation came from our analysis of themes 1, 3, and 5. These themes suggest that collaboration is most successful when it values the expertise of all team members and the efforts of team members working together and communicating in a respectful and inclusive manner. For behavior analysts in schools to value the expertise of other team members, they must understand their roles. This can be obtained through specially designed training that may not be currently available or currently required. Additionally, successful collaboration is a skill that must be taught like all other behaviors, by doing it in appropriate contexts with proper support and supervision. By requiring preparation programs to include training on collaborative practices, we would be better preparing future behavior analysts to be successful. By providing more continuing education opportunities to expand collaborative practice competencies in school settings, behavior analysts will be able to also build competency in school culture and processes which can result in a greater sense of acceptance and belonging.

The third recommendation suggests that behavior analysis should reflect on ways in which we can remain conceptually systematic while ensuring collaborative practices. This would allow us to change the way we discuss this dimension of behavior analysis with new trainees to decrease rigidity and increase successful collaboration across disciplines. This recommendation is directly related to theme 6 where respondents stated that collaboration was difficult when their viewpoint as behavior analysis was not accepted by others or when others recommended interventions that were not conceptually systematic with behavior analytic approaches. If we were to reflect more on this area, we could perhaps increase our collaborative skills while also remaining true to our science and improving the overall view of behavior analysis by other related service providers.

Limitations

One significant limitation was that the study focused only on people who had worked in public schools in some capacity. The survey did not differentiate between those who were currently employed in a school versus those who had worked in schools previously and were now working in some other capacity. Additionally, the survey questions and results did not differentiate who employed the BCBAs respondents (i.e., a private agency or the school district) or if they were currently working in a school setting and employed within the school district. The collaborative experiences of agency-employed BCBAs who are contracted by the school may be vastly different from the experience of BCBAs who are employees and thus community members of the school system.

Another limitation of the study lies in not providing any parameters or guidance to the participants to frame or structure their “definition of collaboration.” Providing them with some focal points such as the TCO (BACB, 2022) and Ethics Code (BACB, 2020) or other key aspects of collaboration as described within Bronstein’s model for interdisciplinary collaboration (2003) or the Core Competencies for Interprofessional Collaborative Practice (IPEC, 2016) may have been helpful in prompting more thorough responses from participants. Conversely, providing too much information may have also inhibited more spontaneous responses related to collaboration.

Despite 441 individuals completing the survey, only 253 completed the open-ended question regarding how they defined successful collaboration. This reduced the sample size for review and posed a question as to why 188 people chose to skip this open-ended question. Desai and Reimers (2019) suggest that open-ended survey questions may be more time consuming and that participants who respond to surveys on their phone may have more difficulty in typing out responses. Recent studies also indicated that open-ended survey questions lead to an increase in survey break off or nonresponse (Hadler, 2023; Luebker, 2021). The number of questions within the survey that occurred before the respondents were asked to define collaboration may have affected the results. It is possible that the length of the survey produced survey fatigue resulting in fewer responses or briefer responses to open-ended questions that are inherently limited already as participants are unlikely to provide rich or detailed explanations. The response rate to the survey itself was also a limitation. The number of respondents (n = 253) was large enough to engage in a comprehensive qualitative analysis which lends credibility to the findings; however, the overall response rate (2.29%) was very low.

Finally, this study focused singularly on a behavior analyst’s perspective about collaboration. This is a limitation since it is only one perspective within collaborative practices. It would have been beneficial to survey a range of collaborative team members and then conduct a comparison of these definitions to determine similarities and differences.

Implications for Practice and Future Research

This study provided a glimpse into how BCBAs define successful collaborative practices. Given multiple resources that are available describing essential elements of successful collaborative practices and there is little articulation of these elements within the BCBA TCO (BACB, 2022), greater attention to the preparation of BCBAs to adopt a humble stance and interprofessional framework may promote greater successful collaborative practices in a range of employment settings, including schools. Developing several competencies related to interprofessional collaborative practice and teamwork skills within the coursework of BCBAs would provide a firmer foundation when BCBAs provide services in school settings.

It would also be beneficial for future studies to investigate how teams as units define successful collaborative practices and skills that are valued the most. It may be found that collaboration is unique depending on the circumstances, specific goals, and membership of the team. Other future studies should focus on evaluating the collaborative process itself, to describe the essential aspects of a successful collaborative team. Success should be further defined as effective teaming practices that lead to positive student and family outcomes. Identifying key team members’ satisfaction outcomes would further validate the collaborative process in schools. An evaluation of what support and training teams need and prefer will strengthen team performance, build trusting and valued relationships, increase job satisfaction, and promote positive student outcomes.

Conclusion

Behavior analysts value operational definitions to ensure consistency among implementers and data collectors. The results of this survey accentuated the point that currently, BCBAs do not have or use a common definition of successful collaboration. To better prepare new BCBAs for the workforce, the field of applied behavior analysis must provide clarity on the definition of successful collaboration while “collaborating” with other disciplines who will be at the interdisciplinary collaboration table. This is especially relevant for IEP teams who are compiled for the purpose of supporting students in school settings who are experiencing serious behavioral challenges. Themes that emerged as important to BCBAs participating in this study related to “valuing the expertise of all team members, including families,” “focusing on activities that benefit the student,” and “communicating with respect and working on agreed upon goals” should be considered as valued components of a definition of collaboration. In addition, further investigation related to challenges and barriers when collaborating with others is needed, considering a BCBA’s sense of belonging on the team and the willingness of non-behaviorally trained team members to consider and value contributions that an applied behavioral analysis approach may have on behavioral supports and student outcomes.

Current BCBAs in schools must also reflect upon and change the way they approach collaboration with other professionals. Collaboration should be viewed as something that benefits the entire team rather than a burden or requirement as reported in the survey. While collaboration may be difficult to align with behavior analytic principles and the ethical code at times, adopting a stance of humility, embracing compromise as a desired outcome of collaboration, and being open to a wide range of effective and evidence-based solutions should be considered to ensure the most effective interventions are implemented in the best interest of the student. This will help not only the student but those BCBAs who reported feeling that they were not accepted as team members. By changing how behavior analysts view collaboration, we may change how those in schools view behavior analysts.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Funding

The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign provided financial support for participant recruitment and distribution of the survey.

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available as supplementary materials.

Declarations

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

All participants provided written informed consent prior to commencement of the study.

Conflict of interest

The authors do not have any conflict of interest to disclose.