Under

such circumstances, behavior analysts should refer to the

Professional and Ethical Compliance Code for Behavior

Analysts (hereafter, “the Code”) outlined by the Behavior

Analyst Certification Board (2017). As behavior analysts, we

must rely on professionally derived knowledge based on sci

ence (Code 1.01) to guide our practice and recommendations.

Furthermore, the Code (2.0) outlines the responsibility behavior

analysts have to operate in the best interest of their clients,

including the obligation to advocate for and educate the client

about effective and scientifically supported treatments.

Although there are situations in which the behavior analyst

can make the case against a recommendation that does not

have empirical support, there are times when a multidisciplin

ary team may decide to incorporate that intervention into a

client’s programming. If the behavior analyst is unfamiliar

with the intervention, he or she should conduct a literature

review and consult with colleagues and mentors. Assuming

that the intervention will not harm the individual or the indi

vidual’s progress and that the team (or family) decides to

implement the intervention, the behavior analyst should ob

tain written consent to evaluate the intervention and commu

nicate relevant information to the team. Behavior analysts can

approach recommendations for non-empirically supported in

terventions by engaging in evidence-based practice, using the

existing literature and their clinical expertise, and systemati

cally evaluating effects that the intervention has on target re

sponses. By operationally defining target responses, collecting

data, and using experimental designs (e.g., A-B-A-B,

alternating-treatments design), behavior analysts can deter

mine if a recommendation is beneficial, has no effect, or is

countertherapeutic for their clients.