We, the Illinois Association for Behavior Analysis (ILABA), collectively value support, learning, openness, and an inclusive community. In alignment with these values, we hosted a listening session on 6/22/22 to hear how our membership would like to respond to recent events in behavior analysis, including Contingent Electric Skin Shock (CESS). In that session, we heard members asking for us to draft a statement that opposed CESS.
As an association, we support ethical and compassionate care within the field of behavior analysis, practiced within scope of competence, and reliant on evidence. The seven dimensions of applied behavior analysis (Baer et al., 1968) require that behavior analytic treatment be conceptually systematic, and the evidence does not support the use of CESS (Zarcone et al, 2020). Further, The Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts (Behavior Analyst Certification Board, 2020) is framed by four foundational principles: benefit others; treat others with compassion, dignity, and respect; behave with integrity; and ensure competence. The use of CESS as a treatment does not abide by these guiding principles.
Because of this, the Illinois Association for Behavior Analysis advocates for an ethical and humane practice of behavior analysis and vehemently opposes the use of CESS.
Thank you to Mass ABA for compiling the following references:
ABAI Accreditation Board Accreditation Handbook (ver. 2/2021)
Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M, & Risley, T. R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1(1), 91-7. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1968.1-91
Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (2017). BCBA/BCaBA task list (5th ed.). Littleton, CO: Author
Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (2020). Ethics code for behavior analysts. Littleton, CO: Author.
Devices for Self-Injurious or Aggressive Behavior (2020): A Rule by the Food and Drug Administration, Docket No. FDA-2016-N-1111, 2020-04328, 85 (45), 13312-13354.
Federal Register (2020). 21 CFR Parts 882 and 895: 85 FR 13312: Banned Devices; Electrical Stimulation
Rosenberg, N. E., & Schwartz, I. S. (2018). Guidance or compliance: What makes an ethical behavior analyst? Behavior Analysis in Practice, 12(2), 473-482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-018-00287-5
Zarcone, J. R., Mullane, M. P., Langdon, P. E., & Brown, I. (2020). Contingent Electric Shock as a Treatment for Challenging Behavior for People with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: Support for the IASSIDD Policy Statement Opposing Its Use. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities,17(4), 291-296. https://doi.org/10.1111/jppi.12342.
And thank you to ILABA member Anna Cronin for the following references:
American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (2019, February 5). Position Statement on Electric Shock. https://www.aaidd.org/news-policy/policy/position-statements/electric-shock
Diament, Michelle. (2022, June 13). House Approves Ban on Electric Shock Devices For Those with Developmental Disabilities. Disability Scoop. https://www.disabilityscoop.com/2022/06/13/house-approves-ban-on-electric-shock-devices-for-those-with-developmental-disabilities/29894/#:~:text=House%20Approves%20Ban%20On%20Electric%20Shock%20Devices%20For%20Those%20With%20Developmental%20Disabilities,-by%20Michelle%20Diament&text=Congress%20is%20moving%20to%20ban,have%20long%20decried%20as%20torturous.
Katz, Pam (2022, July 8). The Arc Denounces Ruling on Use of Shock on Residents with Disabilities at Judge Rotenberg Educational Center. The Arc. https://thearc.org/blog/the-arc-denounces-ruling-on-use-of-shock-on-residents-with-disabilities-at-judge-rotenberg-educational-center/