Responsible Conduct
An RBT/BT implements a token economy without consulting the BCBA to decrease avoidance behaviors during circle time.
This action violates Code 1.01 because creating and implementing interventions is outside the RBT’s/BT's scope of practice, as they are not trained or certified to design interventions independently.
During the holiday season, a client’s parent gives the RBT/BT a gift card and a personalized mug as a thank-you for their work. The RBT/BT accepts the gifts, feeling it would be rude to decline. Later, the RBT/BT decides to give the client a small toy as a holiday present to reciprocate the gesture.
The RBT’s/BT's acceptance of a gift from the client’s parent and their decision to give a gift to the client violate Ethical Code 2.04. This code is in place to maintain professional boundaries and avoid creating a sense of obligation or favoritism.
An RBT/BT is working with a client under the supervision of a BCBA. The BCBA asks the RBT/BT to create a comprehensive behavior intervention plan (BIP) for a client based on the information from the assessment. The RBT/BT, feeling confident in their understanding of the client’s needs, begins to develop the plan without consulting the BCBA, thinking it’s part of their job.
The RBT/BT is asked to create a BIP, which is outside their scope of practice and certification. As an RBT/BT, they are not qualified to design treatment plans; this is the responsibility of the BCBA. By proceeding without informing their supervisor, the RBT/BT violated Code 3.02.
An RBT/BT is going through a stressful breakup and feels emotionally overwhelmed. Despite this, they continue to provide services to a client. During a session, the RBT becomes visibly distracted, loses patience with the client, and raises their voice when the child engages in challenging behavior.
This action violates Code 1.08 because the RBT/BT failed to recognize how their personal stress and emotional state were impacting their ability to provide effective, professional, and ethical care. This behavior jeopardized the quality of the service and potentially harmed the client.
An RBT/BT is out with friends and starts talking about a difficult day at work. To illustrate their point, they describe a client’s behavior challenges in detail, including the client’s first name, diagnosis, and specific interventions being used. Later, the RBT/BT leaves client session notes in their car overnight, where they are visible through the window.
The RBT/BT violated the code 2.08 regarding confidentiality of their client in two ways:
An RBT/BT is working with a young child with autism who is learning to request preferred items using a communication device. During a session, the RBT/BT gives the child long, complex instructions, such as, "If you want the toy, you need to press the button, and after pressing the button, I’ll give it to you as soon as I see you pressing the button and waiting for me to acknowledge it." The child struggles to understand, becomes frustrated, and does not engage in the activity.
The RBT's/BT's communication was too complex for the child to understand, which goes against the ethical code 3.06 to communicate in a way that is simple and appropriate for the client’s level of understanding.
An RBT/BT agrees to provide in-home therapy sessions for a family three times a week. However, they frequently cancel at the last minute, arrive late, or leave sessions early, citing personal reasons. Additionally, when they do attend sessions, they are underprepared, having not reviewed the client’s program updates from their supervisor.
The RBT is not fulfilling their contractual obligations or providing high-quality work. The repeated cancellations, tardiness, and lack of preparation demonstrate a failure to follow through on their commitments, violating Code 1.09.
An RBT/BT decides to record a therapy session to review their performance and improve their skills. The RBT/BT sets up their phone to record the session without informing the client’s parents or obtaining consent from their supervisor or other staff members present during the session.
The RBT/BT recorded the session without obtaining prior consent from the client’s parents or staff, violating the ethical code 2.06. Recording without permission disregards the client’s and staff’s right to privacy and autonomy.
An RBT/BT is working with a client who has aggressive behaviors and has been following a behavior plan developed by the supervising BCBA. During a session, the RBT/BT observes a significant increase in aggression, and, feeling confident, the RBT/BT decides to implement an unapproved crisis intervention technique they have seen used in another setting (but have not been trained in). The RBT/BT does not consult with their supervisor before implementing this technique.
The RBT/BT is providing services outside of their defined role by attempting to implement a crisis intervention technique that is beyond their training and scope of practice. The RBT’s/BT's role is to implement the interventions outlined in the behavior plan, not to develop or change crisis intervention procedures. This violates code 3.05
An RBT/BT begins providing therapy to a client whose parent happens to be their old high school friend. Over time, the RBT/BT and the parent start socializing outside of therapy sessions, attending dinners together and discussing personal matters. This social relationship starts to interfere with the professional boundaries of their working relationship. For example, the parent begins asking the RBT/BT to make unsupervised changes to the behavior plan because of their friendship.
This violates code 1.06. The RBT/BT allowed a multiple relationship to develop by engaging in a personal friendship with the client’s parent, creating a conflict of interest. They did not inform their supervisor or take steps to resolve the situation, as required by the ethics code.
An RBT/BT is believes the client was "just tired" and that is why they didn't respond to goals as they usually would. The RBT/BT decides to delete all the session data for those goals they had taken and would run them again the next session. When the supervisor looks over the client’s case, they find significant gaps in the client's data making it hard to created effective interventions and see patterns.
The RBT/BT improperly handled the disposal of client records by deleting data. This action violated ethical code 2.10 regarding record retention and hindered the continuity of services for the client.
An RBT/BT works with a client with autism under the supervision of a BCBA. The RBT/BT is also trained in a non-behavioral therapy technique (e.g., art therapy) that they have been practicing on their own time. During a session with the client, the RBT/BT decides to use their knowledge of art therapy to guide the client through an unapproved art activity, without consulting their supervisor or involving the behavior plan. They make statements like, “I’m an art therapist, so this technique will help you calm down.”
The RBT/BT is violating the code 3.08 by introducing and referring to their non-behavior-analytic training (art therapy) during a session where their role is to implement behavior-analytic interventions. By displaying their personal expertise in a non-behavior-analytic area, they blur the lines of their professional role and may confuse the client and others involved in the treatment process.
An RBT is working with a client who has significant self-injurious behaviors. Without consulting their BCBA supervisor, the RBT decides to implement a punishment procedure (e.g., taking away a preferred toy every time the client engages in self-injury). When confronted by their supervisor, the RBT explains they were unaware that this was outside their scope of practice or that such procedures require approval and oversight
The RBT’s/BT actions violated the ethics code 1.02 because:
An RBT/BT posts a picture on an ABA support group on social media account celebrating the success of a client who has made significant progress in therapy. The post includes a photo of the client’s artwork, with the client’s first name and the therapy goals written in the background. The RBT/BT also tags the therapy center where they work, potentially making it easier to identify the client.
By posting a photo that includes identifiable information about the client, such as their name and specific therapy details, the RBT/BT violated the ethics code 2.05. Even though the client’s identity may not be immediately obvious to the general public, the post compromises confidentiality and could potentially be traced back to the individual.
An RBT/BT begins working with a new client and, after receiving initial training from their supervisor, continues to work with the client independently without ongoing supervision. The supervisor provides minimal oversight, and the RBT/BT handles all aspects of the sessions, including making decisions about the client's behavior intervention plan, which was initially outlined but not updated or reviewed regularly. The RBT/BT does not seek guidance or report progress to the supervisor for several weeks, feeling confident they can manage without assistance.
The RBT/BT is practicing outside of the ethical code 3.01 by working without close, ongoing supervision from a qualified supervisor. As an RBT/BT, they are required to receive continuous oversight to ensure that their interventions are effective and appropriate, and to get support in adjusting the behavior plan if necessary.