A Beginner’s Guide to Clinical Behavior Analysis
If you’re interested in studying how to treat ‘mental health’ issues, as a behavior analyst, Clinical Behavior Analysis (CBA) is the pathway you should be looking into.

Clinical Behavior Analysis (CBA) is not a new area for behavior analysis, in fact, behavior analysts treating “mental health” issues pre-dates the refocusing of the field to the treatment of Autism. Clinical Behavior Analysis involves using learning principles to help people who often identify as having “mental health” challenges change their behavior and improve their functioning. 

What is Clinical Behavior Analysis?
Clinical Behavior Analysis (CBA) is at the intersection of behavior analysis and psychology. It is the application of behavioral principles to changing behaviors previously considered to fit in within the are of ‘mental health’. Clinical Behavior Analysis focuses on changing behavior through functional analysis and reinforcement of more adaptive behaviors. CBA requires evaluating the impact of multiple levels of contingencies on the client and determining which level(s) of contingencies to intervene on to create the most impact in changing the client’s behavior. Changing the client’s behavior – also tends to change the client’s experience. Application of behavioral principles to ‘mental health’ has existed since Skinner’s time; however, much of CBA fell out of popularity during the Cognitive Revolution within psychology. Now, with ‘psychology’ in a replication crisis born of the constructs and methods that allowed for rapid growth and division from behavior analysis – CBA is rising again in popularity.

History of Clinical Behavior Analysis
Clinical behavior analysis was developed during a time of rapid growth and change in scientific psychology. With a strong interest in data-driven treatment, John B. Watson and other early behaviorists began researching methods that could be scientifically verified. They turned away from early clinical work with mental health issues—and techniques that couldn’t be measured or observed—and toward controlled experiments. They laid down a foundation for understanding how different operant and classical conditioning might be used to treat behaviors considered “mental illness.”

During the Cognitive Revolution, Clinical Behavior Analysis as a clear arm of behavior analysis fell out of focus; however, treatments based on behavior analytic principles grew within realms of “psychotherapy” traditions. These treatments are now often confused as themselves being CBA. Examples of these treatments that fall into this category include Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT), and Functional Analytic Psychotherapy (FAP). To be clear – ACT, DBT, and Functional Analytic Psychotherapy may be performed in ways that are CBA – but they are not by default CBA. It is entirely possible to do ‘canned ACT’ or to otherwise do what people recognize as one of these treatments without using functional analysis to guide treatment. In those cases, these treatments are not CBA.

Acceptance and Commitment Therapy as Clinical Behavior Analysis
Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) has become very popular with behavior analysts, particularly as Relational Frame Theory (RFT) and as a clinical behavior analysis recently. There is much current debate over whether “ACT” is clinical behavior analysis. This debate is well warranted as ACT though grown out of Relational Frame Theory and explicitly behavior analytic principles diverged to compete with cognitive-behavioral treatment packages. This necessarily led to a language that would fit training a multitude of clinicians (mid-level terms) and result in higher inter-rater reliability in Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) against Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT). Most would say “ACT” accomplished its goals here and now is recognized as a treatment efficacious for the treatment of a wide variety of “psychological” problems right alongside its former chief competitor, Beckian CBT. Now – the issue becomes that most of the existing training on ACT follows the patterns set during this period. These trainings are meant for psychotherapists, use imprecise mid-level terms that tend to confuse behavior analysts, and do not well prepare behavior analysts for utilizing ACT in ways consistent with behavior analytic scope and practice. 

Functional Analytic Psychotherapy as Clinical Behavior Analysis
Functional Analytic Psychotherapy has its foundation behavior analytic principles as a way of improving in-session behavioral repertoires. The clinician then seeks to generalize these in-session improvements to the client’s outside-of-session life. In recent years, this treatment has also begun to go the way that ACT did to become better recognized as an effective psychological treatment. This has included, again, developing standardized terminology and even beginning to focus on a more specific set of clinical problems. This again – is well suited for the treatment becoming a competitor in “psychotherapy” according to standards of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) but does not bode well for the training of behavior analysts in this treatment according to their scope and capabilities.

Dialectical Behavior Therapy as Clinical Behavior Analysis
Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) is a form of therapy developed by Marsha Linehan, Ph.D., that emphasizes chain analysis, fading, and reinforcement of less dangerous behaviors in its population of interest. This approach has been shown effective in treating people who suffer from intense suicidal urges or self-harming behaviors like cutting or drug addiction. Despite how DBT has held to its roots somewhat more effectively than it would seem ACT and Functional Analytic Psychotherapy have – it is also in this writer’s opinion likely the most out-of-scope for behavior analysts simply due to the typical target applications of the overall treatment package. There are many places where topography can be picked up under supervision for behavior analysts and treatment methods may be taught consistent with behavioral principles and behavior analysts’ scope of practice. DBT applied to “borderline personality disorder” is well appreciated for its difficulty and danger in application. True “DBT” is performed with a team of clinicians, with a great deal of support, and is not for behavior analysts beginning to develop skills in Clinical Behavior Analysis. 

Clinical Behavior Analysis as Clinical Behavior Analysis
It’s because of the incompatibilities in how some of these treatments are now taught that I prefer to refer to Clinical Behavior Analysis as “Clinical Behavior Analysis.” If we are clear in labeling it differently, it will be easier for behavior analysts wanting training in ACT or other treatment techniques to find clinicians able to train them in ways consistent with their scope and behavioral principles. This does not again mean that one cannot learn the techniques used in “ACT” but that one will likely be learning them without the use of mid-level terms and with more precise and clear linking to behavior principles. 

by Angela Coreil, PhD

In my recent invited talk at CalABA on Clinical Behavior Analysis as a way of unifying the behavioral sciences, I alluded to a series of painful learning experiences that brought me to Clinical Behavior Analysis.

My training path has been long and winding – all with the intention of finding ways to improve clinical treatment. You see, I grew up with a close family member experiencing a great deal of impairment, emotional pain, and later addiction. I was present for years of this family member seeking treatment and even as a child seeing failures in the systems meant to help her. I watched her go through the revolving door of inpatient units, which became like brief vacations to her. I watched as therapists seemed helpless to soothe her pain. And, I watched as she was prescribed pill after pill to ease her pain. I was at an early age effectively an involuntary ‘mental health’ crisis worker.

This led to a passion for understanding human behavior and a desire to find better ways to address human suffering. I believed that I could best influence treatment by becoming a process and outcomes researcher and set upon a long path to become this. I spent a number of years gaining experience on process and outcomes studies at a number of major research institutions in Houston, Texas where I lived. Then I happened upon on a job as a Research Coordinator for a project called “Opportunity Houston.” This was a large grant focused on treating dual diagnosis (mental health + addiction) homeless individuals. The study focused in some respects on enriching the environments of those experiencing addiction by providing housing and work, contingent on improving maintenance of sobriety. I later learned this was a study in part of Kelly Wilson’s design, an ACT founder. At the time, I would not have known who he was but the William “Dub” Norwood was my advisor there and he was an early ACT devotee.  

It was through him that I began to be exposed to ACT and then entered the University of Houston – Clear Lake for my master’s in Clinical Psychology. Following this, I started my doctorate in Clinical Psychology under Rob Zettle, Steve Hayes’ first student who played a strong role in developing ACT back when it was called “Comprehensive Distancing.” Throughout my master’s I found myself drawn to ACT, in its stance that human suffering was a natural part of the human experience and often an extension of otherwise adaptive behavior. In my early exposures to Beckian Cognitive Behavior Therapy, I was often presented with a list of ‘cognitive distortions’ and told that treatment would in part be helping clients recognize their ‘cognitive distortions.’ At the time, I found this conceptualization offensive and insensitive. I could not imagine myself telling other humans experiencing pain that their painful thoughts were ‘distortions’ of reality.

I would say that the way that clinical psychology training is currently structured – learning deeply the key elements of treatment is not an easy experience. We are typically taught behavioral principles but soon after we begin to divide off into camps to learn the particular language ways of our chosen orientations. I broke from this tradition repeatedly because beyond my allegiance to “ACT” was the guiding rule that my mission was to find ways to understand and improve treatment as a process researcher. I became more fluid in ACT treatment and began to depart from “canned ACT” in the early years of my doctorate. I had early experiences of clients with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder” finding ways to “compulse” (momentarily avoid or reduce their anxiety) with the very ACT exercises I provided them. One client taught mindfulness, returned the next week to tell me how effective mindfulness had been in reducing their anxiety. I asked what had occurred and the client recounted engaging in mindfulness ‘instead of’ compulsions each time they became anxious. 

I went back to Rob and told him what had occurred and in his monotone way of beating a dead horse for my benefit he said ‘Yes, of course.’ And, then followed it with the ‘Hole in the Field’ metaphor to illustrate how I’d simply given the client a new shovel. Now, I would need to again – get them to drop their new improved ‘shovel.’ This was all in the context of learning Exposure and Response Prevention (ERP) also known within the behavior analytic community still as desensitization.

It was working in OCD and specializing in a particular technique that was widely endorsed across theoretical orientations as the ‘gold standard’ (i.e., ERP) for treating anxiety and related disorders that allowed me, I believe, to be able to track more about the differences in models as a I learned. After learning this technique well embedded in ACT, I sought out an Advanced Assistantship with the closest highly regarded research and treatment specialty center in Kansas. My clinical supervisor was widely regarded as a highly-skilled Beckian Cognitive Behavioral Therapy clinician and researcher. My initial learning experiences here were somewhat disorienting; however, as I went in with experience and skill validated by ACT experts. Fairly quickly into my training at this center, it became clear that ACT was not particularly favored by my supervisor and to treat clients under her supervision using similar language was quick to elicit punishment.

I remember writing back to my lab at that time and questioning whether I was actually proficient in ERP and ACT. The response I received was telling – but for years I did not fully understand the impact of what I was told in the full context of my academic experience. Rob told me that my ACT and ERP was fine and that I would simply have to ‘learn their language.’ He mentioned that as Steve Hayes’ first student he was also sent to work under the competing theoretical model for his internship year – under Aaron Beck. Though he never disclosed much about this experience directly it often seemed apparent that his internship year had probably not been easy on him.

I’d like to say that I won this particular CBT expert over; in fact, I learned the language and got out as soon as possible. I seemed to be fighting a battle far bigger than myself with zero footing as a new mother of a 4-month old just pre-internship. From here, I moved onto working at Rogers Memorial Hospital under Brad Reimann and running the day-to-day clinical management of an adult Intensive Outpatient Program for OCD in Oconomowoc, Wisconsin. By that time, I had mastered the CBT language and found myself commended and promoted for my treatment skill.

by Angela Coreil, PhD

Fields Ready for Change: Notes from CalABA 2022

As I sit here today, recalling my experience of CalABA and the responses to talks, including but not limited to my own talk on unifying the sciences, it is clear that change is both needed and wanted. We find ourselves in a world where COVID has altered how we operate in our lives and in our world. We have found ourselves in the ‘Great Resignation’ of people leaving their positions and rethinking their priorities out of necessity.

I too have been on this journey. Long before 2020, I found myself embedded in a system of seemingly unworkable contingencies. This led to several years of inventing and reinventing myself and my career – and finally to freedom from the system that had held me down for a decade. It is from this perspective and with this experience that I find myself advocating for the field to be better, not because I am the right person to do so, but because I built myself a system that allows me to speak up more freely than most.

At CalABA 2022, I was able to speak at my first in-person conference since freeing myself from academia. I found myself re-invigorated by the presence, energy, and curiosity of those who attended my talk: Clinical Behavior Analysis: Unifying the Behavioral Sciences. It was inspiring to see how many people were already thinking about how to find a common language between behavior analysis and psychology and how many people were working in positions where they both needed and wanted more guidance on how to navigate the intersection between our fields.

There were a number of patterns that were evident in the responses of attendees. First, many were unaware that Clinical Behavior Analysis has existed since the 1950s. Second, the pervading thought was that additional degrees would help broach this gap – yet, those with multiple degrees broaching both fields still had the same questions. “Which hat am I operating under?”, “How do I know if I am still in scope?”, “Where does ‘ACT’ begin and end in relation to RFT and to the clinical situation I find myself in on a daily basis?” Many were struggling with how to speak to colleagues and stakeholders about the areas where our fields meet and divide. And, as I presented regarding the bubble forming as more behavior analysts enter the field and nearly all enter the Autism treatment area – there was recognition of how this affects the perception of behavior analysis, drives the narrowing of treatment programs, and ultimately will leave behavior analysts vulnerable to changes that are not under their control (e.g., changes in the DSM, etc).

Sign up for our mailing list or check out our continuing education if you’d like to learn more about clinical behavior analysis or rule-governed behavior!

by Amy R. Murrell, Ph.D.

             The paper summarized here, was written by myself and former students (Al-Jabari, Moyer, Novamo, and Connally), and published in the International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy in 2014 examines the problem of adolescent suicide from an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) practitioner’s perspective. At the time of the paper’s publication, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2014), approximately 4,600 young people completed suicide annually in the United States. At the time of this summary, that number is nearly 7,000 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2019). I chose to summarize this paper for two reasons: I wish that number were moving in the opposite direction, and I think the conceptualization written about here is useful.

            Of course, more adolescents attempt suicide and have ideation about suicide than complete it. Those youth are important to discuss from a functional contextual point of view, and that is what this article does. It is divided into seven major sections. The first section discusses the prevalence, antecedents, and consequences of adolescent suicidal behavior. The second introduces experiential avoidance, and the third introduces the ACT model. The next section is “the heart” of the paper, giving an ACT conceptualization of adolescent suicidal behavior. The next two sections talk about a specific client, first hypothetically and then with a case example. The final section summarizes the state of relevant empirical evidence to date (at the time of publication). Here I will cover just a bit of each section, so you get a feel for the article’s content. I am biased, but I think you should give it a read.

            The article states that there are some behaviors (e.g., substance abuse) that co-occur with and may predict suicidal ideation and attempt, but there are also individuals who have no previous diagnosis who have suicidal behavior. It is obvious, therefore, that there is no set pattern or easy prediction – with one caveat. Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. The costs of suicidal behavior are great. According to Yang and Lester (2007), every year in the United States alone, non-fatal suicide attempts cost about 4.72 billion dollars. The consequences go far beyond money, though. The article talks of cluster suicides, survivor guilt, and worsening negative emotional experiences. 

            This leads into the discussion of experiential avoidance (EA), noting that attempts to control, suppress, lessen, or avoid those negative emotions (or thoughts, bodily sensations, and/or places that might make them more likely) may worsen distress. Next, ACT is introduced as a treatment to address EA. In both the section on EA and the section on ACT, assumptions of functional contextualism are addressed (e.g., all behaviors serve specific purposes in specific settings). This is the perfect segue to Chiles and Strosahl’s (2005) definition of suicidal behavior as learned behavior that functions as an avoidance of – or escape from – negative emotions.

            In brief, ACT views suicide as a perfectly reasonable solution to feeling stuck or hopeless. Suicidal behavior is seen as the result of normative human language and cognition processes. The article states that normalizing suicidal behavior shifts the therapeutic context to an open and honest one that may help reduce client shame. Just as a little teaser, there is a discussion about relational framing related to thoughts of suicide and how that may bring relief. There are several intervention strategies suggested (e.g., values with specific future-oriented goals). The hypothetical client is used as a way to provide context for how suicidal behavior, in general, might be discussed. The issues of safety planning and contracting are discussed in this section as well.

            The ACT approach to these issues is different from many other clinical takes; if you don’t know it, you might find it an interesting read. A de-identified client example illustrating how defusion, values and several other ACT components were used to address suicidal behavior is the last section before empirical evidence is provided. The case example illustrates that, as is often the case, the client remains quite anxious yet she is living out her values more and thinking of suicide less.

            The data summary indicated the need for research on suicidal behavior. This is still a particular need. Fortunately, however, in the last six years the evidence for ACT with adolescents has increased. Since this paper was written, there have been 10 randomized controlled trials with participants under the age of 18. For details, see the Association for Contextual Behavioral Sciences State of the Evidence Page.

References:

ACBS State of the Evidence Page https://contextualscience.org/state_of_the_act_evidence.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. (2011b). Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS) [online]. Last Updated February 25, 2014. [cited]. Retrieved from http://libproxy.library.unt.edu:2465/injury/wisqars/fatal_injury_reports.html

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NCHS Data Brief, No. 352, Oct 2019 [ online]. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db352-h.pdf

Chiles, J. A. & Strosahl, K. D. (2005). Clinical manual for assessment and treatment of suicidal patients. Arlington, VA, US: American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc.

Murrell, A. R., Al-Jabari, R., Moyer, D., Novamo, E., & Connally, M. L. (2014). An acceptance and commitment therapy approach to adolescent suicide. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 9(3), 41–46. https://libproxy.library.unt.edu:2147/10.1037/h0101639

Yang, B., & Lester, D. (2007). Recalculating the economic cost of suicide. Death Studies, 31(4), 351–361. 10.1080/07481180601187209