BEH 5046: Ethics in Applied Behavior Analysis
Unit 10 Team Assignment: Ethical Decision-Making in Behavior Analytic Practice
Course Context and Assessment Parameters
Course Code: BEH 5046
Course Title: Ethics in Applied Behavior Analysis
Institution: Florida Institute of Technology
Semester: Fall 2026
Assessment Type: Collaborative Team Presentation with Individual Reflection
Assessment Weight: 25% of Final Course Grade
This assessment brief applies to graduate-level coursework in behavior analysis at institutions accredited by the Association for Behavior Analysis International (ABAI). Similar assessments appear in Capella University’s PSY7705 Ethics for Applied Behavior Analysis, the University of West Florida’s EDF 6557, and Rutgers University’s Standard Six Professional Education toolkit.
Introduction
Behavior analysts encounter ethical dilemmas as an inherent component of professional practice. These situations rarely present with clear resolutions, and practitioners frequently benefit from structured deliberation with colleagues. The Behavior Analyst Certification Board’s Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts, effective January 1, 2022, restructured ethical obligations around four core principles: benefit others; treat others with compassion, dignity, and respect; behave with integrity; and ensure competence. The fourth edition of Bailey and Burch’s Ethics for Behavior Analysts provides a comprehensive companion to the Code, with chapters 6 through 9 addressing responsibility as a professional, responsibility in practice, responsibility to clients and stakeholders, and responsibility to supervisees and trainees respectively.
This team assignment requires selecting two ethical scenarios from the Bailey and Burch (2022) text, analyzing them through the BACB core principles and a structured decision-making model, and presenting findings in a team PowerPoint with corresponding speaker notes. The assignment emphasizes collaborative deliberation, an approach that mirrors the professional practice of consulting colleagues on complex ethical matters. A recent qualitative study by Kelly et al. (2023) found that behavior analysts frequently rely on informal peer consultation when navigating ethical dilemmas, yet few use formal decision-making models systematically. This assignment addresses that gap by requiring structured application of ethical frameworks.
Learning Outcomes
Upon successful completion of this assignment, students will demonstrate the ability to:
-
Identify ethical dilemmas in behavior analytic practice using the BACB Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts and the four core principles.
-
Apply a systematic ethical decision-making model to resolve complex practice scenarios.
-
Evaluate personal biases and their potential impact on ethical decision-making, drawing on standards such as 1.10 (Awareness of Personal Biases and Challenges) and 1.07 (Cultural Responsiveness and Diversity).
-
Synthesize perspectives from multiple team members to formulate defensible ethical resolutions.
-
Communicate ethical reasoning clearly and professionally in both written and presentation formats.
Assignment Structure and Deliverables
Team PowerPoint Presentation
Teams of three to four students will prepare a 14- to 18-slide PowerPoint presentation with a corresponding Word document containing speaker notes that match each slide. One team member will submit the final files.
Required Components:
| Component | Slide Count | Key Requirements |
|---|---|---|
| Title Slide | 1 | Team name, all member names, course code, date |
| Introduction | 1 | Selected scenarios, rationale for selection, identification of core principles at risk |
| Scenario 1 Analysis | 6–9 | Three-Part Decision Model application, BACB Code standards, core principle integration |
| Scenario 2 Analysis | 6–9 | Three-Part Decision Model application, BACB Code standards, core principle integration |
| Conclusion | 1 | Reflection on how ethical decision-making tools assist practice |
| References | 1 | APA 7th edition citations for all sources |
Individual Reflection Essay
Each student will submit a three-page reflection essay addressing the group process and personal learning. Required content includes:
-
An analysis of the team experience through one of three frameworks: leadership communication and the Johari Window (Little, 2005), Tuckman’s Team Development Model, or the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument.
-
A discussion of personal biases and strategies to mitigate their influence on treatment, referencing relevant BACB Code standards.
-
Identification of at least one core principle upheld during the collaborative process, with specific supporting details.
-
A minimum of three peer-reviewed journal articles published within the last five years, cited in APA format.
Peer Evaluation Form
Each student will complete a confidential peer evaluation assessing the contribution of every team member, including self-assessment.
Scenario Selection and Analysis Framework
Selecting Scenarios from Bailey and Burch (2022)
Chapters 6 through 9 of Bailey and Burch’s fourth edition address the following domains:
-
Chapter 6: Responsibility as a Professional
-
Chapter 7: Responsibility in Practice
-
Chapter 8: Responsibility to Clients and Stakeholders
Writing a Similar Assignment?
Get a Scholar-Written Paper Matched to Your Brief
Every order is handled by a degree-holding expert in your subject — written to your exact rubric, fully original, and delivered ahead of your deadline.
Start My Order -
Chapter 9: Responsibility to Supervisees and Trainees
Teams should select two scenarios that present meaningful ethical tensions. Consider scenarios involving value conflicts, interdisciplinary collaboration challenges, or situations where two core principles appear to compete.
The Three-Part Decision Model
Teams will apply the decision-making model introduced in Unit 2. The model proceeds through three sequential phases:
-
Identify and Define the Ethical Dilemma: State the problem clearly, identify all stakeholders, and determine which BACB Code standards are implicated.
-
Analyze and Deliberate: Evaluate competing considerations, consult the core principles, and consider the perspectives of all relevant parties.
-
Select and Justify a Course of Action: Choose a resolution, document the rationale, and specify implementation steps including monitoring and follow-up.
Throughout each phase, teams must demonstrate how they uphold the four core principles and cite specific BACB Code standards that guide their reasoning. Relevant standards may include:
-
1.10: Awareness of Personal Biases and Challenges
-
1.07: Cultural Responsiveness and Diversity
-
2.01: Providing Behavior Analytic Services
-
2.04: Environmental Conditions That Support Safe and Effective Services
-
3.01: Responsibility to Clients
-
3.02: Identifying Stakeholders
-
4.06: Performance Monitoring and Feedback
-
5.01: Public Statements by Behavior Analysts
Sample Application: Interdisciplinary Conflict Scenario
Consider a scenario in which a behavior analyst receives a recommendation from a speech-language pathologist to implement a communication intervention that lacks empirical support within the behavior analytic literature. The client’s parents express a preference for the SLP’s recommendation, creating tension between respecting stakeholder autonomy and adhering to evidence-based practice standards.
A systematic approach to this dilemma begins with clarifying the nature of the conflict. The behavior analyst must determine whether the proposed intervention poses risk of harm, whether the SLP’s recommendation falls within the scope of their professional competence, and whether the parents possess sufficient information to provide informed consent. This initial clarification aligns with the first phase of the Three-Part Decision Model and draws on standard 2.01, which requires behavior analysts to provide services only within their defined scope of competence. Huang et al. (2023) developed a step-by-step protocol for ethical deliberation in value-based dilemmas that emphasizes distinguishing between disagreements rooted in empirical evidence and those stemming from divergent values.
The deliberative phase requires the behavior analyst to consult the core principles systematically. The principle of benefiting others supports prioritizing interventions with demonstrated efficacy, yet the principle of treating others with compassion, dignity, and respect requires honoring the parents’ perspectives and the SLP’s professional contributions. Henderson et al. (2023) note that behavior analysts have been criticized for resistance to collaboration, a perception that can undermine client outcomes when professionals fail to integrate diverse expertise. Effective deliberation involves inviting the SLP to share the evidence base supporting their recommendation, examining whether the intervention can be adapted to align with behavioral principles, and identifying areas of genuine agreement. When value-based tensions persist, documenting the deliberation process and consulting a trusted colleague or ethics committee provides additional safeguards.
The resolution phase requires selecting an action that upholds the most critical principles while minimizing harm to the therapeutic relationship. Options may include implementing the SLP’s recommendation with behavioral data collection to monitor outcomes, proposing a trial period during which both interventions are evaluated, or respectfully declining to implement the recommendation while clearly documenting the rationale and offering alternative evidence-based strategies. Standard 3.01 obligates behavior analysts to prioritize client welfare, and standard 1.10 requires ongoing self-examination of personal biases that may distort professional judgment. The selected course of action should be documented in the client’s record, communicated transparently to all stakeholders, and subjected to ongoing review.
-
Behavioral data should drive decisions about intervention effectiveness.
-
Stakeholder perspectives warrant genuine consideration even when they conflict with behavioral recommendations.
-
Documentation of ethical deliberation protects both the client and the practitioner.
-
Ongoing consultation with colleagues strengthens ethical decision-making.
Stuck on Your Assignment?
Essay Bishops Experts Are Ready Right Now
Join thousands of students who submit confidently. Human-written, plagiarism-checked, and formatted to your institution's exact standards.
Order My Custom Paper Use code BISHOPS for 25% off
Assessment Rubric
| Criterion | Exceeds Expectations (90–100%) | Meets Expectations (80–89%) | Approaching Expectations (70–79%) | Below Expectations (Below 70%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Identification of Ethical Issues | Identifies all relevant ethical issues with precise Code citations and nuanced analysis of competing considerations | Identifies primary ethical issues with appropriate Code citations | Identifies some ethical issues but overlooks complexities or misapplies Code standards | Fails to identify key ethical issues or provides no Code support |
| Application of Decision Model | Applies all three phases systematically with thorough documentation of reasoning and stakeholder analysis | Applies all three phases with adequate reasoning | Applies decision model incompletely or superficially | Does not apply decision model or applies it incorrectly |
| Integration of Core Principles | Demonstrates sophisticated understanding of how all four core principles interact in the resolution | Integrates multiple core principles appropriately | References core principles but does not connect them to the resolution | Omits core principles or misinterprets their application |
| Team Presentation Quality | Slides are professional, well-organized, and speaker notes provide substantive elaboration | Slides and speaker notes meet requirements | Slides or speaker notes are incomplete or poorly organized | Presentation lacks required components or contains significant errors |
| Individual Reflection | Reflection demonstrates deep self-awareness, cites three or more recent peer-reviewed sources, and connects learning to professional practice | Reflection addresses all required components with adequate depth and sources | Reflection addresses most components but lacks depth or sufficient sources | Reflection omits required components or lacks scholarly support |
Submission Requirements
Format: PowerPoint (.pptx) and Word document (.docx) for speaker notes
Length: 14–18 slides; three-page individual reflection
Citation Style: APA 7th edition
Due Date: End of Unit 10
Submission Method: Canvas assignment portal
References
Bailey, J. S., & Burch, M. R. (2022). Ethics for behavior analysts (4th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003198550
Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (2022). Ethics code for behavior analysts. https://www.bacb.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Ethics-Code-for-Behavior-Analysts-220316-2.pdf
Henderson, T. B., Ludden, B. J., & Romero, R. A. (2023). The ethical obligations, barriers, and solutions for interprofessional collaboration in the treatment of autistic individuals. Behavior Analysis in Practice, *16*(4), 963–976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-023-00787-z
Huang, W., Lee, G. T., & Zhang, X. (2023). Dealing with uncertainty: A systematic approach to addressing value-based ethical dilemmas in behavioral services. Behavioral Interventions, *38*(4), e1969. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1969
Kelly, E. M., et al. (2023). How behavior analysts make ethical decisions: A qualitative study. Behavior Analysis in Practice, *18*(3), 693–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-023-00804-1
Little, L. (2005). Leadership communication and the Johari Window. Administrator, *24*(3), 4.
Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group and Organization Studies, *2*(4), 419–427.
Keywords
behavior analyst ethics assignment, BACB ethics code 2022, ethical decision-making model behavior analysis, Bailey Burch ethics scenarios, core principles behavior analysts, team presentation ethics ABA, behavior analysis graduate assignment
Next Assessment: Unit 11 Discussion Board
Course: BEH 5046
Week: Unit 11
Assessment Type: Discussion Post
Description: Reflect on a time when you observed or experienced an ethical dilemma in a professional setting. Describe the situation without identifying details, identify the BACB Code standards that were relevant, and explain how you would approach the situation differently using the Three-Part Decision Model. Your initial post should be 400–500 words. Respond to at least two classmates by comparing their approaches to your own, identifying areas of agreement and divergence.
=====================================================
Submit a three-page individual reflection that examines collaborative ethical decision-making in BEH 5046, links group process to a development framework, addresses bias mitigation, and documents core-principle application with recent scholarly support.
Collaborative analysis of ethical scenarios from Bailey and Burch (2022) revealed how structured deliberation strengthens professional judgment. The team selected two cases involving competing obligations under the BACB Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts (2022). One centered on an interdisciplinary recommendation that lacked behavior-analytic support; the other addressed supervisor feedback that risked client confidentiality. Application of the three-part decision model required clear identification of stakeholders, evaluation of core principles, and justified action steps. The process itself became the subject of reflection.
Tuckman’s stages of small-group development (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977) offer a useful lens for examining the team’s progression. Initial meetings showed the forming stage: members exchanged limited personal information and deferred to the most experienced participant for scenario selection. Politeness masked uncertainty about how to weigh evidence-based practice against parental preference. Within two sessions the storming stage emerged. Disagreement surfaced over the relative weight of Standard 2.01 (providing services within competence) versus Standard 3.01 (responsibility to clients). One member argued that declining the speech-language pathologist’s recommendation preserved scientific integrity; another insisted that dismissing the recommendation without trial data violated compassion and respect. The conflict forced explicit discussion of personal learning histories. Norming followed once the group adopted a shared documentation template that required each member to list implicated Code standards and the core principle most at risk. Performing occurred during the final synthesis meeting, when the team produced coherent resolutions that integrated data collection plans and transparent communication scripts. The model therefore mapped observable shifts in interaction rather than remaining an abstract classroom concept.
Personal bias entered the deliberation at several points. Prior clinical experience with families who had rejected behavioral recommendations created an initial preference for rapid assertion of competence boundaries. Standard 1.10 requires continuous awareness of such biases and their potential to distort judgment. Recognition of this tendency prompted a deliberate pause: the group listed alternative explanations for parental preference before evaluating risk of harm. Cultural responsiveness under Standard 1.07 further required examination of assumptions about the speech-language pathologist’s evidence base. Kelly et al. (2023) found that behavior analysts often rely on informal peer consultation yet rarely apply formal decision models systematically. The team’s use of the three-part model countered that pattern by forcing written justification at each phase. Strategies that proved effective included rotating the role of “bias checker,” requiring each participant to articulate the strongest counter-argument to their own position, and consulting the Huang et al. (2023) protocol for distinguishing empirical disagreements from value conflicts. These steps reduced the influence of individual history on the final recommendations.
The collaborative process upheld the core principle of treating others with compassion, dignity, and respect. When the team reached an impasse on whether to pilot the non-behavioral communication strategy, members invited the hypothetical stakeholder perspectives into the discussion rather than dismissing them. Documentation of that invitation appeared in the speaker notes and later in the client-record template the group designed. Henderson et al. (2023) note that behavior analysts have been criticized for resistance to collaboration; the team’s explicit invitation of competing professional viewpoints directly addressed that criticism. The resulting resolution proposed a time-limited trial with continuous behavioral data collection, clear criteria for continuation or termination, and joint feedback sessions. Client welfare remained primary under Standard 3.01, yet the process itself modeled respect for interdisciplinary colleagues and family values. Observation of the group’s movement from positional advocacy to shared problem-solving demonstrated that the principle operates not only in client interactions but also within professional teams.
Structured ethical tools therefore function as both analytical instruments and relational safeguards. The three-part model supplied sequential accountability, while Tuckman’s framework illuminated the social conditions that either facilitate or obstruct its use. Continued practice in documenting bias checks and inviting counter-arguments appears likely to improve consistency across future clinical decisions. The assignment confirmed that ethical competence develops through repeated, observable application rather than solitary reflection.
References
Bailey, J. S., & Burch, M. R. (2022). Ethics for behavior analysts (4th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003198550
Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (2022). Ethics code for behavior analysts. https://www.bacb.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Ethics-Code-for-Behavior-Analysts-220316-2.pdf
Henderson, T. B., Ludden, B. J., & Romero, R. A. (2023). The ethical obligations, barriers, and solutions for interprofessional collaboration in the treatment of autistic individuals. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 16(4), 963–976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-023-00787-z
Huang, W., Lee, G. T., & Zhang, X. (2023). Dealing with uncertainty: A systematic approach to addressing value-based ethical dilemmas in behavioral services. Behavioral Interventions, 38(4), e1969. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1969
Kelly, E. M., Greeny, K., Rosenberg, N. E., & Schwartz, I. S. (2023). How behavior analysts make ethical decisions: A qualitative study. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 18, 693–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-023-00804-1
Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Studies, 2(4), 419–427.
Our Key Guarantees
- ✓ 100% Plagiarism-Free
- ✓ On-Time Delivery
- ✓ Student-Friendly Pricing
- ✓ Human-Written Papers
- ✓ Free Revisions (14 days)
- ✓ 24/7 Live Support