Low publication rate of 2005 conference presentations: Implications for practitioners serving individuals with autism and intellectual disabilities

Abstract

This study determined the percentage of presentations at the annual conference of the Association for Behavior Analysis in 2005 with the autism (AUT) and developmental disabilities (DDA) codes (N = 880) that (a) provided continuing education credits (CEs) for Board Certified Behavior Analysts (BCBAs) and Board Certified Assistant Behavior Analysts (BCaBAs) and (b) included content that was published in a peer-reviewed outlet. Results indicate that only 77 (8.8%) presentations were ultimately published. Although posters were not eligible for CEs, posters accounted for 57.1% of the published presentations. Specifically, posters presented by a university-affiliated presenter accounted for 44.2% of presentations with published content. As a whole, only 10.4% of AUT and DDA presentations offering CEs contained data sets that were published. Considered together, these results suggest that the content provided to BCBAs and BCaBAs for CEs may not be adequately measured or sufficiently rigorous to guide clinical practices.

Full text

Low
publication
rate
of
2005
conference
presentations:
Implications
for
practitioners
serving
individuals
with
autism
and
intellectual
disabilities
Sarah
M.
Richling
a,1
,
John
T.
Rapp
b,1,
*,
Janie
A.
Funk
a
,
Jaimie
D’Agostini
a
,
Natalia
Garrido
a
,
Vicki
Moreno
a
a
University
of
Nevada-Renoc,
United
States
b
Auburn
University,
United
States
1.
Introduction
The
present
article
offers
analysis
of
publication
rates
of
conference
presentations
relevant
to
the
services
provided
for
individuals
diagnosed
with
either
autism
or
intellectual
disabilities.
For
the
purpose
of
a
succinct
analysis,
we
selected
a
specific
domain
–
behavior
analysis
–
in
the
treatment
of
those
with
autism
and
intellectual
disabilities.
Behavior
analysis
lends
itself
well
to
such
analysis,
as
its
literature
on
said
treatment
is
extensive
(Matson,
Matson,
Lott,
&
Logan,
2002).
Despite
exclusive
analysis
of
the
behavior-analytic
domain,
the
discussion
may
be
generalized
to
other
disciplines
involved
in
the
treatment
of
individuals
with
autism
and
intellectual
disabilities,
as
the
analysis
of
publication
rates
of
conference
presentations
is
applicable
to
any
domain
from
which
a
clinician
might
provide
treatment
and
services.
The
annual
conference
for
the
Association
for
Behavior
Analysis
International
(ABA-I)
includes
presentations
in
the
form
of
papers,
symposia,
posters,
panel
discussions,
workshops,
and
Expo
posters.
Submissions
for
each
type
of
presentation
are
reviewed
by
ABA-I
representatives
to
ensure
they
meet
submission
guidelines
as
outlined
in
an
annual
call
for
papers.
Presentations
in
the
form
of
symposia,
panel
discussions,
and
workshops
may
provide
continuing
education
units
(CEs)
for
Research
in
Developmental
Disabilities
35
(2014)
2744–2750
A
R
T
I
C
L
E
I
N
F
O
Article
history:
Received
1
July
2014
Accepted
7
July
2014
Available
online
30
July
2014
Keywords:
Association
for
Behavior
Analysis
International
Conference
presentations
Continuing
education
Publications
A
B
S
T
R
A
C
T
This
study
determined
the
percentage
of
presentations
at
the
annual
conference
of
the
Association
for
Behavior
Analysis
in
2005
with
the
autism
(AUT)
and
developmental
disabilities
(DDA)
codes
(N
=
880)
that
(a)
provided
continuing
education
credits
(CEs)
for
Board
Certified
Behavior
Analysts
(BCBAs)
and
Board
Certified
Assistant
Behavior
Analysts
(BCaBAs)
and
(b)
included
content
that
was
published
in
a
peer-reviewed
outlet.
Results
indicate
that
only
77
(8.8%)
presentations
were
ultimately
published.
Although
posters
were
not
eligible
for
CEs,
posters
accounted
for
57.1%
of
the
published
presentations.
Specifically,
posters
presented
by
a
university-affiliated
presenter
accounted
for
44.2%
of
presentations
with
published
content.
As
a
whole,
only
10.4%
of
AUT
and
DDA
presentations
offering
CEs
contained
data
sets
that
were
published.
Considered
together,
these
results
suggest
that
the
content
provided
to
BCBAs
and
BCaBAs
for
CEs
may
not
be
adequately
measured
or
sufficiently
rigorous
to
guide
clinical
practices.
ß
2014
Elsevier
Ltd.
All
rights
reserved.
*
Corresponding
author
at:
Department
of
Psychology,
226
Thach,
Auburn,
AL
36849-5214,
United
States.
Tel.:
+1
3348446668.
E-mail
address:
jtr0014@auburn.edu
(J.T.
Rapp).
1
Both
these
authors
are
Board
Certified
Behavior
Analysts.
Contents
lists
available
at
ScienceDirect
Research
in
Developmental
Disabilities
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2014.07.023
0891-4222/ß
2014
Elsevier
Ltd.
All
rights
reserved.

Board
Certified
Behavior
Analysts
(BCBAs)
and
Board
Certified
Assistant
Behavior
Analysts
(BCaBAs).
Kangas
and
Vaidya
(2007)
reviewed
trends
in
presentations
at
ABA-I
from
1980
through
2007.
Among
other
trends,
Kangas
and
Vaidya
noted
sharp
increases
in
both
the
number
of
overall
attendees
and
applied
presentations
in
2003.
The
authors
noted
that
these
increases
likely
corresponded
with
requirements
for
BCBAs
and
BCaBAs,
the
majority
of
whom
provide
services
to
individuals
with
autism
and
intellectual
disabilities,
to
obtain
a
minimum
of
36
and
24
CEs
every
three
years,
respectively,
to
maintain
certification.
Given
these
requirements,
it
is
possible
that
demand
for
CEs
may
be
controlling
much
of
the
presentation
content
at
the
ABA-I
conference.
In
order
to
provide
CEs
at
the
annual
ABA-I
conference,
a
submission
must
meet
three
general
requirements.
The
submitting
author
must
(a)
affirm
that
the
event
covers
behavior
analysis
practice,
theory,
or
methodology,
(b)
affirm
the
presence
or
supervision
of
a
continuing
education
(CE)
instructor
who
meets
qualifications
as
outlined
by
Behavior
Analyst
Certification
Board
(BACB),
and
(c)
attest
that
the
CE
instructor
and
any
co-instructors
have
completed
substantial
formal
or
experiential
training
in
the
subject
matter
of
the
presentation
(ABA-I,
2013).
The
BACB
guidelines
require
that
the
CE
instructor
(a)
holds
a
doctoral
degree
and
meets
either
the
coursework
or
college
teaching
option
for
fulfilling
BCBA
eligibility
requirements,
(b)
has
completed
all
requirements
for
a
doctorate
degree
except
the
dissertation,
meets
the
coursework
option
for
BCBA
eligibility,
and
has
completed
graduate
coursework
or
has
published
in
the
subject
matter
on
which
Type
2
CE
instruction
is
provided,
or
(c)
is
an
active
BCBA
(ABA-I,
2013).
2
If
presentations
submitted
to
the
ABA-I
conference
meet
all
requirements
as
outlined
by
ABA-I
and
the
CE
instructor
meets
all
requirements
as
outlined
by
the
BACB,
the
CE
instructor
may
provide
CEs
to
BCBAs
and
BCaBAs
who
attend
the
presentation.
As
such,
an
analysis
of
the
extent
to
which
these
presentations
effectively
educate
and
affect
practices
of
behavior
analysts
is
warranted.
In
addition,
an
analysis
of
the
quality
of
the
educational
content
contained
within
these
presentations
is
warranted.
The
present
study
is
a
first
step
toward
determining
an
appropriate
method
for
addressing
the
latter
goal.
To
facilitate
an
analysis
of
the
quality
of
educational
content,
an
index
by
which
quality
can
be
evaluated
must
be
adopted.
However,
ABA-I
is
currently
without
such
an
index,
at
least
in
any
formal
sense.
One
possible
index
of
the
quality
of
CE
presentations
at
ABA-I
is
the
percentage
of
presentations
that
are
published
in
peer-reviewed
journals
such
as
the
Journal
of
Applied
Behavior
Analysis
(JABA),
the
Journal
of
Autism
and
Developmental
Disabilities
(JADD),
Behavioral
Interventions,
The
Analysis
of
Verbal
Behavior
(TAVB),
Research
in
Developmental
Disabilities,
Research
in
Autism
Spectrum
Disorders,
and
other
journals
that
publish
behavior-analytic
studies.
That
is,
one
may
argue
that
a
high
percentage
of
publications
in
scholarly
journals
may
suggest
a
high
quality
of
presentation
content
and,
by
extension,
indicate
a
high-quality
of
CE
instruction
for
BCBAs
and
BCaBAs.
In
contrast,
a
low
percentage
of
publications
associated
with
these
CE-approved
presentations
may
represent
a
problematic
drift
away
from
evidence-based
practice.
These
assumptions,
however,
should
not
be
accepted
without
further
consideration.
Thus,
the
purpose
of
this
study
is
two-fold.
First,
this
study
provides
a
descriptive
analysis
of
publication
rates
of
ABA-I
presentations
as
a
preliminary
index
of
presentation
quality.
As
discussed
in
more
detail
later,
it
must
be
stressed
that
while
the
current
data
may
not
be
the
only
measure
for
evaluating
the
quality
of
ABA-I
presentations
and
CE,
the
data
are
currently
available
for
analysis.
As
such,
the
second
purpose
of
this
paper
is
to
urge
that
(a)
other
measures
of
quality
be
put
into
place
within
the
framework
of
the
ABA-I
conference
that
allow
for
an
adequate
analysis
of
the
CE
provided
to
attendees,
(b)
antecedent
manipulations
be
adopted
within
the
submission
process
to
promote
awarding
CE
credits
to
only
presentations
that
are
of
sufficient
scientific
merit,
or
(c)
both.
The
current
investigation
evaluated
the
publication
rate
of
content
presented
at
the
ABA-I
conference
in
2005.
Other
professional
disciplines
have
evaluated
the
quality
of
research
presentations
by
determining
the
percentage
that
are
published
in
peer-reviewed
outlets
(e.g.,
Abicht,
Donnenwerth,
Borkosky,
Plovanich,
&
Roukis,
2012;
Macmillan,
Moore,
Cook
&
Pedley,
2007;
O’Neill
et
al.,
2014;
Roukis,
2011;
Tyagi,
Chugh,
Kumar,
&
Sethi,
2013);
this
standard
was
applied
in
the
present
study.
To
our
knowledge,
no
study
has
evaluated
the
percentage
of
presentations
at
ABA-I
or
other
behavior-analytic
conferences
that
may
contain
content
that
is
ultimately
published.
To
obtain
such
data,
we
opted
to
track
presentations
made
at
ABA-I
2005
because
(a)
ABA-I
3
is
the
largest
and
most
attended
behavior-analytic
conference
that
offers
CEs
for
BCBAs
and
BCaBAs
and
(b)
we
assumed
that
sufficient
time
had
passed
for
presentations
made
in
May
of
2005
to
be
published
in
a
peer-reviewed
outlet.
2.
Method
2.1.
Dependent
variables
and
data
collection
An
analysis
of
all
titles
and
corresponding
abstracts
presented
as
posters,
papers
or
symposia
at
ABA-I
2005
was
conducted
beginning
in
April
2012
and
concluded
in
March
2014.
An
initial
search
was
conducted
using
the
2005
ABA-I
conference
program
and
online
archives.
All
presentations
categorized
either
primarily
or
secondarily
in
the
areas
of
autism
(AUT)
or
developmental
disabilities
(DDA)
were
utilized
for
the
current
investigation.
These
domains
were
chosen
as
the
2
One
minor
change
in
the
guidelines
has
occurred
since
2004
(Ratcliff,
personal
communication,
February
10,
2014).
3
According
to
Kangas
and
Vaidya
(2007),
there
were
nearly
4000
attendees
in
2005.
S.M.
Richling
et
al.
/
Research
in
Developmental
Disabilities
35
(2014)
2744–2750
2745

prevalence
of
autism
and
developmental
disabilities,
as
well
as
the
challenges
presented
to
those
who
provide
treatment
to
individuals
with
each,
is
significant
(Matson
&
Shoemaker,
2009).
For
secondary
observations,
we
collected
data
on
the
names
of
the
first
and
second
presenting
authors,
title
of
presentation,
type
of
presentation,
first
author
affiliation,
affiliation
type,
and
approval
for
CEs.
An
additional
search
was
then
conducted
in
order
to
determine
a
corresponding
publication
for
each
presentation
via
Pubmed
TM
,
EBSCO
host
TM
,
Google
Scholar
TM
,
and
Google
TM
.
The
standardized
search
strategy
for
revealing
peer-reviewed
publications
is
described
below.
For
all
presentations
with
corresponding
publications,
the
first
author’s
affiliation
was
categorized
as
a
primarily
clinical
facility,
clinical
research
facility,
or
university
facility
(including
both
students
enrolled
at
a
university
and
faculty
members
employed
by
the
university).
2.2.
Categorizing
presentations
ABA-I
provides
a
printed
convention
handbook
containing
abstracts
of
all
poster
and
oral
presentations
for
each
conference,
and
the
official
ABA-I
website
provides
access
to
archives
of
presentation
titles
and
abstracts.
Using
these
respective
resources,
research
assistants
collected
data
on
the
title
of
the
presentation,
abstract,
categorization
area
of
the
presentation
(i.e.,
AUT
or
DDA),
presentation
type
(i.e.,
poster,
paper,
or
symposium),
name
of
the
first
and
second
authors,
affiliation
of
the
first
author,
and
CE
approval.
When
submitting
presentations
to
the
ABA-I
conference,
the
author
is
required
to
categorize
the
presentation
by
primary
and
secondary
area.
All
presentations
with
the
primary
or
secondary
categorization
AUT
or
DDA
were
analyzed
during
the
current
investigation.
We
selected
the
areas
of
AUT
and
DDA
because
BCBAs
and
BCaBAs
pursuing
CEs
likely
attended
presentations
in
one
or
both
areas.
Moreover,
it
is
likely
that
those
who
attend
such
presentations
provide
behavioral
services
to
individuals
diagnosed
with
autism
or
intellectual
disabilities.
Thus,
the
current
study
did
not
analyze
presentations
that
did
not
have
AUT
or
DDA
as
a
primary
or
secondary
area.
In
total,
880
4
presentations
given
at
the
2005
ABA-I
convention
fit
the
categorization
described
above.
The
archive
of
abstracts
of
ABA-I
presentations
allows
access
to
a
single
abstract
at
a
time,
making
manual
sorting
of
such
a
large
number
of
abstracts
arduous.
To
allow
for
data
analysis,
all
information
was
transcribed
into
an
Excel
TM
document.
2.3.
Searching
for
publications
In
order
to
determine
publication
rate,
a
procedure
similar
to
that
described
by
Macmillian
et
al.
(2007)
was
utilized.
That
is,
the
full
title,
keywords
from
the
title,
and
name
of
the
first
author
for
each
presentation
were
entered
into
the
aforementioned
databases
and
search
engines.
The
name
of
the
first
author
of
each
presentation
was
used
to
search
for
a
corresponding
publication
as
we
assumed
that
he
or
she
would
have
contributed
the
most
to
the
presentation
and,
therefore,
would
likely
be
named
on
any
publication
related
to
that
presentation.
In
addition,
we
searched
for
the
first
author’s
curriculum
vita
or
resume
using
the
Google
TM
search
engine.
We
searched
for
the
author’s
first
and
last
name,
along
with
the
words
curriculum
vita,
CV,
and
resume,
successively.
If
a
curriculum
vita
or
resume
was
located,
it
was
reviewed
to
ensure
the
individual
name
and
affiliation
information
matched
what
was
provided
for
the
presentation
abstract.
If
a
publication
title
listed
in
a
curriculum
vita
or
resume
matched
one
or
more
keywords
with
the
presentation
title,
said
title
was
searched
using
the
aforementioned
search
engines.
In
an
attempt
to
establish
relatively
liberal
criteria
for
matching
presentations
to
publications,
we
defined
any
publication
that
had
similar
hypotheses,
procedures,
participant
characteristics,
and
results
as
a
match
to
the
presentation
(DeMola,
Hill,
Rogers,
&
Abboud,
2009).
If
the
published
paper
included
any
or
all
of
the
data
sets
presented
in
the
abstract
of
the
presentation,
it
was
also
considered
a
match.
No
additional
searches
were
conducted
to
determine
if
multiple
papers
were
published
as
a
result
of
the
content
presented
at
the
2005
ABA-I
conference.
Following
identification
of
a
matching
publication,
data
were
collected
on
the
date
of
publication,
the
journal
in
which
the
paper
was
published,
and
the
title
of
the
published
article.
As
an
additional
measure
to
verify
the
publication
status
of
presentation
data,
we
randomly
selected
88
presentations
(10%
of
all
presentations),
and
then
attempted
contact
with
the
first
author
and
second
author
via
email
or
telephone.
In
some
cases,
we
needed
to
obtain
additional
information
in
order
to
contact
the
first
and
second
author.
For
presentations
with
matching
publications,
we
searched
for
contact
information
for
the
corresponding
author
within
the
publication
itself,
as
articles
often
include
an
to
which
correspondence
can
be
sent.
This
search
process
was
also
conducted
for
presentations
determined
to
be
unpublished
based
on
the
procedures
described
above.
If
the
contact
information
was
not
located
within
a
published
article,
a
search
in
EBSCOhost
TM
using
the
author’s
first
and
last
name
was
conducted.
If
another
article
with
the
same
author
was
located,
the
corresponding
contact
information
was
sought
in
that
article.
When
contact
information
could
not
be
located
in
other
publications,
the
author’s
first
and
last
name,
as
well
as
his
or
her
affiliation
at
the
time
of
presentation,
were
searched
via
Google
TM
.
Additional
searches
for
an
email
address
or
phone
number
were
conducted
through
social
media
(i.e.,
Facebook
TM
and
LinkedIn
TM
).
Contact
was
also
made
through
the
4
This
total
differs
from
the
number
of
presentations
depicted
by
Kangas
and
Vaidya
(2007)
as
the
current
study
focused
on
different
criteria.
For
example,
Kangas
and
Vaidya
counted
an
entire
symposium
as
one
presentation
whereas
the
current
investigation
counted
each
presentation
within
a
given
symposium
as
a
separate
presentation.
Likewise,
Kangas
and
Vaidya
included
workshops
in
their
total,
whereas
the
current
investigation
did
not.
S.M.
Richling
et
al.
/
Research
in
Developmental
Disabilities
35
(2014)
2744–2750
2746

ABA-I
website
member
directory.
Finally,
authors
for
who
only
a
telephone
number
was
located
were
contacted
via
telephone
in
order
to
determine
a
current
email
address.
Following
identification
of
an
author’s
email
address,
a
research
assistant
sent
a
brief
email
inquiring
about
the
current
publication
status
of
the
specific
presentation
title.
If
an
email
response
was
not
obtained
from
the
first
author
after
two
weeks,
a
second
email
was
sent.
If
the
first
author
did
not
reply
after
an
additional
two
weeks,
if
the
return
email
indicated
the
message
was
undeliverable,
or
if
contact
information
could
not
be
found
for
the
first
author,
an
attempt
was
made
to
contact
the
second
author
using
an
identical
procedure.
If
the
second
author
did
not
reply
after
two
weeks,
if
the
return
email
indicated
the
message
was
undeliverable,
or
if
contact
information
could
not
be
found
for
the
second
author,
efforts
for
that
presentation
were
considered
exhausted
and
another
presentation
was
chosen
at
random
until
responses
from
63
presentations
(7%
of
all
presentations)
were
received.
This
verification
process
resulted
in
finding
two
additional
publications
that
were
not
identified
during
the
initial
search
process.
This
was
likely
due
to
the
substitute
terminology
used
within
the
published
titles
and
abstracts.
That
is,
the
presentation
titles
and
publication
titles
did
not
contain
any
matching
words.
In
addition,
the
abstracts
contained
differing
terminology
referring
to
similar
behavioral
procedures
and
concepts.
Ultimately,
these
presentations
were
counted
as
published
and
included
in
all
data
calculations.
Note
that
a
third
publication
was
identified
via
an
email
response
from
the
first
author;
however,
this
article
was
printed
in
Spanish
and
thus
was
outside
the
purview
of
this
investigation.
As
such,
the
corresponding
presentation
was
not
counted
as
published.
2.4.
Presenter
affiliations
All
presentations
that
were
found
to
have
a
matching
publication
were
subjected
to
an
additional
search
using
the
publication
affiliation
of
the
first
author
listed
in
the
ABA-I
2005
conference
handbook.
Each
affiliation
was
categorized
as
a
clinical
facility,
clinical
research
facility,
or
university
facility.
This
categorization
was
determined
by
locating
an
official
website
representing
the
facility.
An
affiliation
was
considered
(a)
a
university
if
the
affiliation
name
included
the
word
‘‘university’’
or
‘‘college’’
(university-based
hospitals
and
clinics
were
considered
clinical
research
facilities),
(b)
a
clinical
research
facility
if
the
mission
or
philosophy
statement
included
a
reference
to
research
with
respect
to
clinical
services
(phrases
such
as
‘‘utilizing
research-based
methods’’
and
‘‘research-based
practices’’
were
not
sufficient
to
be
considered
a
clinical
research
facility),
or
(c)
a
clinical
facility
if
the
mission
statement
or
philosophy
statement
included
a
reference
to
providing
clinical
services
and
did
not
meet
the
criteria
to
be
considered
a
university
or
clinical
research
facility.
2.5.
Interobserver
agreement
Interobserver
agreement
(IOA)
was
assessed
by
having
two
of
the
authors
independently
score
25%
of
the
same
presentations,
which
were
randomly
selected,
as
well
as
25%
of
the
published
presentations
for
presentation
affiliation
type.
We
calculated
IOA
scores
separately
for
the
four
dependent
variables.
For
each
presentation,
the
point-to-point
correspondence
between
two
independent
observers
was
determined.
Within
each
category,
the
number
of
agreements
and
the
number
of
disagreements
was
assessed.
Agreements
were
defined
as
follows:
1.
Approved
for
CEs:
Agreement
was
scored
if
raters
agreed
whether
or
not
the
presentation
was
approved
for
CEs
utilizing
the
information
provided
in
the
conference
handbook
and
the
archived
information
on
the
ABA-I
website.
2.
Publication
status:
Agreement
was
scored
if
raters
agreed
whether
or
not
the
presentation
was
published
based
on
the
database
search
protocol
described
above.
3.
Presentation
type:
Agreement
was
scored
if
raters
agreed
that
the
presentation
was
a
poster,
a
symposium,
or
a
paper
based
on
the
information
provided
in
the
conference
handbook
and
the
archived
information
on
the
ABA-I
website.
4.
Affiliation
type:
Agreement
was
scored
if
raters
agreed
that
the
presentation
affiliation
was
a
clinical
facility,
clinical
research
facility,
or
university
based
on
the
search
protocol
described
above.
For
each
dependent
variable,
the
IOA
score
was
calculated
by
dividing
the
number
of
agreements
by
the
number
of
agreements
plus
disagreements
and
multiplying
that
number
by
100%.
The
IOA
scores
for
CE
approval,
publication
status,
presentation
type,
and
affiliation
type
were
100%,
96%,
100%,
and
95%,
respectively.
3.
Results
Table
1
shows
that
77
(8.75%)
of
the
880
ABA-I
2005
presentations
in
the
AUT
and
DDA
areas
were
published
in
peer-
reviewed
outlets.
Of
the
61
presentations
that
were
offered
for
CEs,
only
13.11%
were
ultimately
published.
Although
this
is
nearly
double
the
percentage
of
publications
resulting
from
presentations
not
approved
for
CEs
(7.83%),
86.88%
of
the
presentations
that
offered
CEs
were
not
published.
Moreover,
of
the
77
presentations
that
involved
published
content,
only
10.39%
offered
CEs,
22.08%
were
not
approved
for
CEs,
and
67.53%
were
not
eligible
to
provide
CEs
(not
depicted
in
Table
1).
Table
2
shows
the
types
of
presentations
(i.e.,
posters,
symposia,
papers)
at
ABA-I
2005
that
were
published
and
provided
CEs.
Posters
accounted
for
62.15%
of
the
total
presentations
and
57.14%
of
the
published
presentations
(not
depicted
in
S.M.
Richling
et
al.
/
Research
in
Developmental
Disabilities
35
(2014)
2744–2750
2747

Table
2);
however,
posters
were
not
eligible
for
CEs.
Still,
only
8.04%
of
all
poster
presentations
were
published.
By
comparison,
symposia
accounted
for
31.59%
of
the
presentations
and
32.47%
of
the
published
presentations
(not
depicted
in
Table
2).
As
with
posters,
only
8.99%
of
all
symposia
presentations
were
published.
Papers
accounted
for
6.25%
of
the
total
presentations
and
10.39%
of
the
published
presentations
(not
depicted
in
Table
2).
Of
the
55
paper
presentations,
14.55%
were
published,
representing
the
highest
publication
rate
across
types
of
presentations.
Papers
were
also
not
eligible
for
CEs.
Overall,
only
8
(0.91%
of
total
presentations)
of
the
AUT
and
DDA
presentations
that
offered
CEs
for
BCBAs
and
BCaBAs
involved
content
that
was
ultimately
published.
Table
3
summarizes
the
percentage
and
type
of
ABA-I
2005
presentations
that
were
published
across
presenter
affiliations.
Presenters
that
were
affiliated
with
a
university
facility
accounted
for
74.03%
of
the
presentations
that
were
published.
More
specifically,
posters
presented
by
university-affiliated
presenters
accounted
for
44.16%
of
the
published
presentations.
By
contrast,
across
all
three
presenter
affiliations,
papers
accounted
for
only
10.39%
of
the
presentations
with
published
content.
Table
1
Publication
and
CE
status
of
AUT
and
DDA
presentations
at
ABA-I
2005.
CE
status
Presentations
Published
Approved
61
8
(6.93%)
a
(13.11%)
b
Not
approved
217
17
(24.66%)
a
(7.83%)
c
Not
eligible
602
52
(68.41%)
a
(8.64%)
d
Total
880
77
(8.75%)
a
Note.
CE,
continuing
education
unit.
a
n/880.
b
n/61.
c
n/217.
d
n/602.
Table
2
Types
of
AUT
and
DDA
presentations
that
were
published
and
provided
CEs.
Presentation
type
Presentations
Published
Approved
CEs
Poster
547
44
–
(62.16%)
a
(8.04%)
b
–
Symposium
278
25
8
(31.59%)
a
(8.99%)
c
(2.88%)
c
Paper
55
8
–
(6.25%)
a
(14.55%)
d
–
Total
880
77
8
(8.75%)
a
(0.91%)
a
Note.
CEs,
continuing
education
units.
a
n/880.
b
n/547.
c
n/278.
d
n/55.
Table
3
Percentage
of
AUT
and
DDA
ABA-I
2005
presentations
that
were
published
across
presenter
categories.
Presenter
affiliation
Published
Type
Paper
Poster
Symposium
Clinical
10
2
6
2
(12.99%)
a
(2.60%)
a
(7.79%)
a
(2.60%)
a
Clinical
researcher
10
1
4
5
(12.99%)
a
(1.30%)
a
(5.19%)
a
(6.49%)
a
University
56
5
34
18
(74.03%)
a
(6.49%)
a
(44.16%)
a
(23.38%)
a
Total
published
77
8
44
25
(10.39%)
a
(57.14%)
a
(32.47%)
a
a
n/77.
S.M.
Richling
et
al.
/
Research
in
Developmental
Disabilities
35
(2014)
2744–2750
2748

4.
Discussion
Results
of
this
study
suggest
that
practitioners
who
provide
behavioral
services
to
individuals
with
autism
and
intellectual
disabilities
may
be
relying
on
information
that
is
of
unknown
quality
and
has
not
been
subjected
to
a
thorough,
formal
review
process.
As
publication
rate
is
not
the
only
indicator
of
quality
research,
a
conservative
interpretation
of
the
current
data
suggests
that
practitioners
are
relying
on
information
that
falls
short
of
publication
standards
for
their
CEs
and,
potentially,
for
their
clinical
practices.
Both
of
these
practices
may
represent
a
drift
away
from
utilizing
research-supported
treatments
within
applied
behavior
analysis.
As
a
whole,
the
findings
may
suggest
a
need
for
changes
to
presentation
guidelines
with
respect
to
CEs.
One
could
argue
that
though
the
publication
rate
of
AUT
and
DDA
presentations
is
extremely
low,
this
outcome
does
not
present
a
problem
because
most
BCBAs
and
BCaBAs
received
CEs
via
workshops.
However,
the
guidelines
for
obtaining
CE
approval
for
workshops
do
not
appear
to
be
any
more
stringent
than
those
for
symposia.
Moreover,
workshops
provide
more
CEs
per
presentation;
thus,
such
a
practice
could
represent
an
even
more
concerning
problem
if
the
quality
of
the
workshops
is
not
high.
One
could
also
argue
that
other
conferences
organized
by
ABA-I
each
year
contain
presentations
of
higher
quality.
However,
the
CE
application
process
is
the
same
for
these
conferences
as
it
is
for
ABA-I.
Given
the
same
presentation
criteria,
it
seems
unlikely
that
presentations
at
those
conferences
yield
higher
publication
rates.
It
is
possible
that
the
low
publication
rate
of
AUT
and
DDA
2005
presentations
is
consistent
with
the
rate
of
conference
presentations
resulting
in
publication
within
other
disciplines.
However,
studies
from
other
disciplines
(not
pertaining
to
services
for
individuals
with
autism
and
intellectual
disabilities)
concluded
that
much
higher
publication
rates
were
insufficient
(e.g.,
Macmillian
et
al.,
2007;
O’Neill
et
al.,
2014).
For
example,
Macmillan
et
al.
reported
that
30%
of
all
presentations
and
57%
of
all
oral
presentations
at
an
emergency
medicine
research
conference
resulted
in
publication.
The
authors
reported
that
these
publication
rates
were
lower
than
rates
for
other
medical
specialties
including
oncology,
orthopedics,
toxicology,
ophthalmology,
and
pediatrics.
To
be
fair,
it
is
not
clear
(a)
to
what
extent
the
ABA-I
publication
rate
compares
with
other
divisions
of
psychology
or
other
social
sciences
as
such
data
are
not
available
and
(b)
what
a
reasonable
rate
of
publication
should
be
for
ABA-I
presentations.
Several
limitations
warrant
further
consideration
with
respect
to
publication
rates
as
a
measure
of
presentation
quality.
It
is
possible
that
the
content
of
some
of
the
2005
ABA-I
presentations
was
of
publishable
quality,
but
the
data
sets
were
not
published
for
unknown
reasons.
There
are
many
factors
that
may
hinder
the
submission
of
data
for
publication
(see
Sprague
et
al.,
2003).
First,
it
is
possible
that
some
authors
had
simply
not
submitted
their
studies
for
publication,
but
they
still
intend
to
do
so.
Although,
the
present
study
allowed
nearly
10
years
for
submission
of
the
presented
content,
it
is
possible
that
some
data
may
be
part
of
an
ongoing,
long-term
study.
Second,
other
factors
such
as
the
perceived
likelihood
of
the
data
getting
published,
the
successful
collection
of
additional
data
to
bolster
findings,
competing
contingencies
interfering
with
writing
time,
and
a
loss
of
interest
in
the
data
may
also
affect
decisions
to
submit
a
data
set
for
publication.
With
respect
to
the
likelihood
of
the
data
getting
published,
this
may
differ
from
other
fields
(e.g.,
the
medical
fields
discussed
above)
in
terms
of
the
number
of
possible
outlets
for
publication
and
relative
acceptance
rates.
Within
psychology,
the
average
rejection
rate
among
APA
journals
is
82%
(APA,
2013),
which
is
comparable
to
the
87%
of
presentations
reported
within
the
current
study
that
offered
CEs
and
were
not
published.
The
extent
to
which
this
logic
applies
to
the
rejection
rates
among
journals
publishing
content
relevant
to
intervention
research
for
individuals
with
autism
and
intellectual
disabilities
is
unknown,
but
worth
consideration.
With
respect
to
the
other
points,
these
are
factors
are
that
are
present
across
individuals
from
all
fields.
Third,
different
contingencies
for
publishing
are
likely
in
place
for
individuals
within
a
university
setting
than
those
within
a
clinical
facility.
Although
research
conducted
in
clinical
settings
may
be
of
high
quality,
it
may
never
be
submitted
for
publication.
For
these
reasons,
there
are
many
possible
reasons
why
research
presented
at
ABA-I
did
not
result
in
publication
apart
from
issues
of
research
quality.
Conversely,
it
is
possible
to
have
manuscripts
of
low
scientific
merit
accepted
for
publication.
The
peer-review
process
is
a
highly
subjective
process
and
the
acceptance
of
manuscripts
is
often
dictated
by
other
factors
beyond
scientific
merit
of
the
submission.
In
addition,
the
specific
journal
to
which
a
manuscript
is
accepted
may
speak
to
the
quality
of
the
research
as
some
journals
are
of
higher
scientific
quality
than
others.
Taken
together,
these
limitations
suggest
that
publication
rate
is
likely
not
the
only
measurement
necessary
for
evaluating
presentation
quality.
These
points
notwithstanding,
the
practice
of
educating
practitioners
with
data
of
unknown
quality
seems
antithetical
to
the
discipline
of
applied
behavior
analysis
and
is
potentially
deleterious
to
those
receive
behavioral
services.
While
publication
rates
are
not
the
only
possible
measure
of
quality,
such
data
give
a
starting
point
for
analyzing
the
relative
quality
of
presentations
offered
for
CE.
Although
incomplete,
publication
rate
is
a
measure
that
is
consistent
across
a
wide
variety
of
conferences
and
disciplines.
Thus,
it
allows
for
substantial
scope
in
terms
of
the
kinds
of
scientific
comparisons
that
can
be
conducted.
The
low
rate
of
publication
for
ABA-I
presentations
that
was
identified
in
this
study
serves
as
an
impetus
for
more
detailed
analyses
of
quality
measures
of
CE.
5.
Conclusions
Overall,
the
results
of
the
current
investigation
suggest
that
steps
may
be
necessary
to
ensure
the
quality
of
CE
presentations
at
ABA-I
and
other
behavior-analytic
conferences.
Perhaps
in
anticipation
of
the
findings
of
this
study,
ABA-I
has
made
several
recent
changes
to
submission
guidelines
(ABA-I,
2013).
For
example,
presenter
roles
are
now
limited
to:
S.M.
Richling
et
al.
/
Research
in
Developmental
Disabilities
35
(2014)
2744–2750
2749

(a)
one
oral
presentation,
(b)
one
chair
role,
one
discussant
role,
or
both
in
any
given
oral
presentation,
and
(c)
two
poster
presentations.
In
addition,
for
individuals
submitting
posters,
a
file
indicating
sufficient
data
collection
has
been
conducted
at
the
time
of
submission
is
required
for
approval.
For
all
other
presentation
types,
the
submitting
author
must
check
a
box
indicating
assurance
that
data
collection
has
begun.
Perhaps
the
most
helpful
of
the
recent
changes
is
that
in
2014
individual
poster
presentations
will
be
appointed
a
discussant
and
a
chair,
both
of
whom
will
be
selected
from
the
pool
of
individuals
presenting
papers,
symposia,
and
panels
(ABA-I,
2013).
We
cannot
predict
the
extent
to
which
the
proposed
changes
will
give
rise
to
higher
publication
rates
or
other
measures
of
quality;
the
effects
of
such
changes
should
be
empirically
evaluated.
Relatedly,
although
publication
rate
provides
considerable
scope
in
terms
of
comparative
research,
we
cannot
definitively
say
that
it
is
the
most
sensitive
measure
of
presentation
quality.
However,
we
can
predict
that
failing
to
impose
measurement
systems
for
analyzing
presentation
quality
and
failing
to
impose
higher
standards
for
CE
presentations
will
continue
to
produce
highly
variable
CE
for
practitioners
within
behavior
analysis.
Future
research
should
(a)
evaluate
the
extent
to
which
the
ABA-I
publication
rate
compares
with
other
applied
behavior
analytic
conferences
providing
CEs,
(b)
evaluate
the
extent
to
which
the
ABA-I
publication
rate
compares
to
those
of
non-
behavior
analytic
conferences
providing
CEs
to
clinicians
who
provide
services
for
individuals
with
autism
or
other
intellectual
disabilities,
and
(c)
define
a
reasonable
rate
of
publication
for
presentations
offering
CEs.
Moreover,
considering
the
results
of
this
study
and
its
limitations,
further
identification
and
implementation
of
sensitive
measures
of
CE
quality
is
warranted.
Acknowledgements
We
thank
Melissa
Nosik,
Mark
Malady,
Jessi
Vega,
and
Stephani
Voshall
for
their
assistance.
References
Abicht,
B.
P.,
Donnenwerth,
M.
P.,
Borkosky,
S.
L.,
Plovanich,
E.
J.,
&
Roukis,
T.
S.
(2012).
Publication
rates
of
poster
presentations
at
the
American
College
of
Foot
and
Ankle
Surgeons
annual
scientific
conference
between
1999
and
2008.
Journal
of
Foot
and
Ankle
Surgery,
51,
45–49.
American
Psychological
Association
(2013).
Summary
report
of
journal
operations:
2012.
American
Psychologist,
68,
381.
Association
for
Behavior
Analysis
International
(2013).
Chicago
40th
Annual
Convention
Call
for
Papers.
Retrieved
from
http://www.abainternational.org/media/
58318/2014CFPChicago.pdf
DeMola,
P.
M.,
Hill,
D.
L.,
Rogers,
K.,
&
Abboud,
J.
A.
(2009).
Publication
rate
of
abstracts
presented
at
the
shoulder
and
elbow
session
of
the
American
Academy
of
Orthopaedic
Surgery.
Clinical
Orthopaedics
and
Related
Research,
467,
1629–1633.
Kangas,
B.
D.,
&
Vaidya,
M.
(2007).
Trends
in
presentations
at
the
annual
conference
of
the
association
for
behavior
analysis.
The
Behavior
Analyst,
30,
117–131.
Macmillian,
C.
D.,
Moore,
A.
K.,
Cook,
R.
J.,
&
Pedley,
D.
K.
(2007).
Abstract-to-publication
ratio
for
papers
presented
at
scientific
meetings:
A
quality
marker
for
UK
emergency
medicine
research.
Emergency
Medicine
Journal,
24,
425–426.
Matson,
J.
L.,
&
Shoemaker,
M.
(2009).
Intellectual
disability
and
its
relationship
to
autism
spectrum
disorders.
Research
in
Developmental
Disabilities,
30,
1107–1114.
Matson,
M.
L.,
Matson,
J.
L.,
Lott,
J.
D.,
&
Logan,
J.
R.
(2002).
Representation
of
international
authorship
across
prominent
journals
in
the
field
of
mental
retardation.
Research
in
Developmental
Disabilities,
23,
293–296.
O’Neill,
B.
J.,
O’hEireamhoin,
S.,
Byrne,
A.
M.,
Kenny,
P.
J.,
O’Flanagan,
S.
J.,
&
Keogh,
P.
(2014).
Publication
rates
of
presentations
at
the
Irish
Orthopaedic
Association
annual
meeting.
Irish
Journal
of
Medical
Science,
183,
111–116.
Roukis,
T.
S.
(2011).
Publication
rates
of
manuscript
presentations
at
the
American
College
of
Foot
and
Ankle
Surgeons
annual
scientific
conference
between
1999
and
2008.
Journal
of
Foot
and
Ankle
Surgery,
50,
416–419.
Sprague,
S.,
Bhandari,
M.,
Devereaux,
P.
J.,
Swiontkowski,
M.
F.,
Tornetta,
P.,
III,
Cook,
D.
J.,
&
Guyatt,
G.
H.
(2003).
Barriers
to
full-text
publication
following
presentation
of
abstracts
at
annual
orthopaedic
meetings.
Journal
of
Bone
and
Joint
Surgery,
85,
158–163.
Tyagi,
A.,
Chugh,
V.,
Kumar,
S.,
&
Sethi,
A.
(2013).
Presentation
of
research
in
anesthesia:
Culmination
into
publication?
Journal
of
Anaesthesiology
Clinical
Pharmacology,
29,
216–220.
S.M.
Richling
et
al.
/
Research
in
Developmental
Disabilities
35
(2014)
2744–2750
2750