Concerns About the Registered Behavior Technician™ in Relation to Effective Autism Intervention

Abstract

In 2014, the Behavior Analyst Certification Board (BACB®) initiated a program for credentialing behavior technicians. The new credential, Registered Behavior Technician™ (RBT®), is for providers of behavioral intervention to a wide range of individuals with mental health needs and developmental delays, including individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The RBT® would represent the entry-level position within the range of the BACB® credentials. Despite the increasing acceptance of this newest level of credential from the behavioral community, the authors of this paper have substantial concerns with the RBT® credential as it relates to the delivery of intervention to individuals diagnosed with ASD. The purpose of this paper is to detail these concerns and propose remedies that would ensure that individuals diagnosed with ASD receive effective behavioral intervention.

The Registered Behavior Technician™ Credential: A Response to Leaf et al. (2017)

“…Their primary concern-again-is the BACB's adherence to national and international standards for developing credentialing requirements rather than using an alternative approach to generate requirements that better correspond to their worldview. The discontent expressed in Leaf et al (2017) is fundamentally a restatement of the arguments first appearing in the book chapter titled To BACB or not to B? by Leaf, Taubman, Bondy, and McEachin (2008).…”

“…The authors of Leaf et al (2017) have requested a response from the Behavior Analyst Certification Board ® (BACB ® ) to their concerns about the Registered Behavior Technician™ (RBT ® ) credential. Leaf et al (2017) is the latest in a series of public and private communications from these authors expressing a general dissatisfaction with the BACB's credentialing activities.…”

“…Leaf et al (2017) is the latest in a series of public and private communications from these authors expressing a general dissatisfaction with the BACB's credentialing activities. Their primary concern-again-is the BACB's adherence to national and international standards for developing credentialing requirements rather than using an alternative approach to generate requirements that better correspond to their worldview.…”

“…Any credentialing standard that is not legally defensible (e.g., consistent with antitrust laws) is likely to be quickly reversed after the inevitable legal action by applicants who do not meet the standard. The recommendations by Leaf et al (2017) appear uninformed by legally defensible credential development, which would render unproductive a point-by-point response to each of their concerns about the RBT credential. In addition, several contradictions and misinformation are found within their comments.…”

“…In contrast to the standard-setting process described above, Leaf et al (2017) recommend that standards instead be the product of empirical research. Here is a sample of the research questions proposed by the authors: Have the BACB credentials been successful in resulting in more qualified providers and improved services?…”