Content uploaded by Victoria Suarez Castillo
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Victoria Suarez Castillo on Aug 10, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
DISCUSSION AND REVIEW PAPER
Standards for Interprofessional Collaboration in the Treatment
of Individuals With Autism
Kristin S. Bowman
1
&Victoria D. Suarez
1
&Mary Jane Weiss
1
Accepted: 9 February 2021
#Association for Behavior Analysis International 2021
Abstract
Interprofessional collaboration has become an essential component in the treatment of individuals with autism spectrum disorder,
as practitioners from a range of disciplines are often necessary to address the core features and co-occurring conditions.
Theoretically, such cross-disciplinary collaboration results in superior client care and maximal outcomes by capitalizing on
the unique expertise of each collaborating team member. However, conflict in collaborative practice is not uncommon given
that the treatment providers come from varying educational backgrounds and may have opposing core values, fundamental goals,
and overall approaches. Although the overarching interest of each of these professionals is to improve client outcomes and quality
of life, they may be unequipped to effectively navigate the barriers to collaboration. This article reviews the potential benefits and
misconceptions surrounding interprofessional collaboration and highlights common sources of conflict. As a proposed solution
to many of the identified issues, we offer a set of standards for effective collaborative practice in the interprofessional treatment of
autism spectrum disorder. These standards prioritize client care and value each discipline’s education and unique contributions.
They are intended to function as core standards for all treatment team members, promote unity, prevent conflict, and ultimately
help practitioners achieve the most integrated collaborative practice among professionals of varying disciplines.
Keywords interdisciplinary .multidisciplinary .transdisciplinary .collaboration .autism
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) continues to be one of the most
prevalent childhood disorders, characterized by deficits in com-
munication and impairments in social interactions, as well as
restricted or repetitive patterns of thoughts and behaviors
(American Psychiatric Association, 2013; Zablotsky et al.,
2015). ASD is often coupled with comorbid gastrointestinal
complications, sleep disturbances, seizure disorders, and mental
health issues, among others (Dillenburger, 2011;LaFranceetal.,
2019;Strunketal.,2017). The complex symptomatology and
high comorbidity associated with ASD frequently involve treat-
ment delivery across a range of professional disciplines (e.g.,
Cox, 2019; Kelly & Tincani, 2013; LaFrance et al., 2019;
Strunk et al., 2017). Board Certified Behavior Analysts
(BCBAs) are commonly part of a larger, interprofessional
treatment team that also includes speech-language pathologists
(SLPs), occupational therapists, special educators, clinical psy-
chologists, and medical doctors, among others (Cox, 2012;
LaFrance et al., 2019). These professionals may find opportuni-
ties to work collaboratively to improve health and educational
outcomes for individuals with ASD (Brodhead, 2015;LaFrance
et al., 2019;Strunketal.,2017), yet, oftentimes, difficulties and
problems arise in the collaborative process and impede the treat-
ment team’s ability to completely unite in providing the most
efficient and effective interprofessional care. Thus, the purpose
of this article is to provide information on collaboration, outline
the barriers to providing optimal collaborative care, and propose
a set of standards to promote the transdisciplinary collaboration
of professionals in the treatment of individuals with ASD.
Interprofessional Collaboration
Spectrum of Collaboration
Literature on interprofessional collaboration indicates that
there are varying extents to which professionals from different
This article was composed to meet, in part, the requirements for a doctoral
degree in applied behavior analysis at Endicott College.
*Kristin S. Bowman
kbowman@endicott.edu
1
Applied Behavior Analysis Program, Endicott College,
Beverly, MA, USA
Behavior Analysis in Practice
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-021-00560-0
disciplines collaborate when working together as part of a
treatment team (e.g., D’Amour et al., 2005 ; Thylefors et al.,
2005). For example, in some collaborative relationships, pro-
fessionalsmay not interact with one another ona regular basis,
whereas in others, professionals may meet regularly and de-
velop treatment plans cohesively (D’Amour et al., 2005;
Thylefors et al., 2005). D’Amour et al. (2005) described this
spectrum of collaboration as a continuum of professional au-
tonomy varying in degrees of interdependence (see Fig. 1).
Various terms, such as “multidisciplinary,”“interdisciplin-
ary,”and “transdisciplinary,”are frequently used to refer to
interprofessional collaborative practices (D’Amour et al.,
2005). Although these terms may be mistakenly used synon-
ymously, each term indicates a different degree of collabora-
tion among treatment team professionals (Bernstein, 2015;
Boger et al., 2017;Choi&Pak,2006;D’Amour et al.,
2005; Thylefors et al., 2005;seeFig.1). We recommend that
the term “interprofessional”be used as an umbrella term re-
ferring to all models of collaboration whereby two or more
professionals representing different disciplines work together
in treatment or assessment of a shared client. Terms such as
“multidisciplinary,”“interdisciplinary,”and “transdisciplin-
ary”refer to specific models of collaboration and are de-
scribed further to clarify the distinction.
Multidisciplinary treatment is frequently recommended for
the management of ASD; however, the extent of collaboration
and integration of expertise is not typically specified (see Cox,
2012;Dillenburgeretal.,2014;LaFranceetal.,2019; Strunk
et al., 2017). According to Gehlert et al. (2010), the diverse
perspectives available through multidisciplinary models may
offer a more comprehensive analysis than what might other-
wise be achieved via a monodisciplinary (i.e., only one pro-
fessional from one field) endeavor. In a multidisciplinary
model, practitioners operate within the confines of their pro-
fessional boundaries, each delivering treatment according to
their discipline-specific view and often to address a specific
and separate deficit (Choi & Pak, 2006; Gehlert et al., 2010).
Therefore, professionals work in parallel with an emphasis on
the solitary development of goals and interventions (Choi &
Pak, 2006), rather than the collaborative process (Collin,
2009;D’Amour et al., 2005; Thylefors et al., 2005).
Multidisciplinary teams are analogous to salads, wherein
various ingredients are included albeit distinct and separate
(Choi & Pak, 2006;seeFigure1). Contributions are additive
rather than integrative (Bernstein, 2015;Choi&Pak,2006).
For example, information may be exchanged between team
members to coordinate care or report progress, but frequent
and ongoing communication is not essential (Strunk et al.,
2017; Thylefors et al., 2005) because input from other team
members does not alter an individual professional’streatment
plan (Choi & Pak, 2006;D’Amour et al., 2005; Thylefors
et al., 2005). Treatment gains may eventually be hindered as
a result of this level of professional autonomy and dissociation
(Choi & Pak, 2006). Whereas the multidisciplinary model
offers more perspectives than a monodisciplinary approach,
the narrow, discipline-oriented viewpoint inhibits a broader
understanding of the complex variables influencing the client
(Gehlert et al., 2010).
Interdisciplinary teams attempt to provide a more compre-
hensive and integrative approach to client care by combining
and coordinating the expertise of the participating profes-
sionals (Collin, 2009; Cox, 2012;D’Amour et al., 2005).
Interdisciplinary teams are analogous to soups or stews,
wherein ingredients cook together to produce unique flavoring
but remain distinguishable (Choi & Pak, 2006; see Fig. 1).
The distinct roles of each discipline are preserved while the
goals and responsibilities are shared (Choi & Pak, 2006;
D’Amour et al., 2005; Gehlert et al., 2010; Thylefors et al.,
2005). For example, team members may conduct separate and
independent evaluations and then work cooperatively to es-
tablish goals (Choi & Pak, 2006). This joint approach requires
more frequent interactions. As a result, team members often
expand their clinical perspectives beyond the boundaries
established by their discipline (Boger et al., 2017; Choi &
Fig. 1 Spectrum of Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration. Note. The figure
depicts a continuum of collaborative practice ranging from professional
autonomy to cross-disciplinary interdependence with characteristics de-
scribing multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary
collaboration. Images of a salad for multidisciplinary, soup for interdis-
ciplinary, and cake for transdisciplinary represent analogies described by
Choi and Pak (2006)
Behav Analysis Practice
Pak, 2006). Although interdisciplinary care trumps a multidis-
ciplinary approach, complete collaboration is not achieved
because professionals work independently to target goals that
were developed collaboratively. Thus, interdisciplinary care
may offer numerous advantages, yet may prevent a fully ho-
listic perspective of multifaceted disorders such as ASD
(Gehlert et al., 2010).
Transdisciplinary collaboration synthesizes the
discipline-specific expertise of each team member by ob-
scuring the boundaries that typically divide fields
(Bernstein, 2015;Bogeretal.,2017;Choi&Pak,2006;
Collin, 2009;D’Amour et al., 2005; Thylefors et al.,
2005). Team members expand their individual roles to
include duties beyond those traditionally assumed within
their scope of practice (i.e., role expansion), as well as
impart their individual, specialized knowledge to other
team members and accept shared responsibility (i.e., role
release; Choi & Pak, 2006). Knowledge and information
are deliberately shared through frequent communication
using a common, jargon-free vocabulary to promote clar-
ity and unity (Boger et al., 2017;Choi&Pak,2006;
Collin, 2009;D’Amour et al., 2005; Gehlert et al.,
2010). Worldviews specific to the individual disciplines
are assimilated into a synergetic framework (Boger et al.,
2017;Choi&Pak,2006; Collin, 2009; Gehlert et al.,
2010), allowing the treatment team to share an integrated
perspective and generate innovative, yet pragmatic solu-
tions to socially significantissues(Bogeretal.,2017;
Choi & Pak, 2006).
The level of harmony purported by transdisciplinary col-
laboration demands mutual trust, respect, and confidence
among team members (Boger et al., 2017; Choi & Pak,
2006;D’Amour et al., 2005) as they are pushed “outside of
their comfort zones”(Gehlert et al., 2010, p. 413), away from
their autonomous, monodisciplinary views and into a perspec-
tive that transcends conventional boundaries (Boger et al.,
2017;Choi&Pak,2006). Similar to the interdisciplinary ap-
proach previously mentioned, treatment goals are conjointly
developed; however, in transdisciplinary collaboration, the
clinical skills and interventions are also shared (Boger et al.,
2017; Choi & Pak, 2006). Transdisciplinarity has the makings
of a hybrid discipline, capitalizing on the unique knowledge
and skills of each individual specialist, and combining them
into a coherent whole (Collin, 2009). That is, the resulting
product is different from and greater than the sum of its indi-
vidual parts. Transdisciplinary collaboration is analogous to a
cake, wherein the ingredients are no longer distinguishable
from one another and produce an entirely different product
that could not otherwise be created (Choi & Pak, 2006;see
Fig. 1). Role release and expansion blur the boundaries that
traditionally divide each discipline. The result is a broad, ho-
listic, and shared perspective necessary to develop compre-
hensive interventions that address multifarious, intertwined
variables (Boger et al., 2017; Gehlert et al., 2010) not other-
wise achieved in multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary collab-
oration. Thus, given the high comorbidity and complex symp-
tomatology of ASD, a transdisciplinary approach to collabo-
ration offers the most effective means of assessment and
treatment.
Benefits of Collaboration
The potential benefits of interprofessional collaboration
are vast and well documented. Although lacking empirical
support, many authors have suggested that the interpro-
fessional team unites the strengths and competencies of
individual specialists to maximize client outcomes
(Brodhead, 2015; Dillenburger et al., 2014;Garman
et al., 2006). Lawson (2004) reported that truly effective
collaboration may additionally lead to enhanced problem
solving, increased efficiency, and access to additional
resources. Additionally, Kelly and Tincani (2013)noted
that collaboration may be more preferred by clients, in-
crease treatment integrity, and result in better maintenance
of acquired skills. Furthermore, Brodhead (2015)
highlighted several professional benefits of effective col-
laborative interactions, including the opportunity to dis-
seminate one’s own science and discipline, understand
other disciplines and perspectives, and develop trusting
partnerships that may enhance the quality of therapeutic
services. Similarly, Hall (2005) suggested that interprofes-
sional collaboration also yields potential benefits for
health care organizations, including higher quality client
care at reduced costs and greater job satisfaction.
With the literature touting the benefits of interprofes-
sional collaboration, it seems an obvious and rational ap-
proach (Dillenburger et al., 2014). Moreover, interprofes-
sional treatment for the management of ASD is recom-
mended by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the
United Nations Convention for the Rights of Persons
With Disabilities, and the National Institute for Health
and Care Excellence (Dillenburger et al., 2014; Strunk
et al., 2017). Therefore, it is not surprising that interpro-
fessional collaboration is growing in popularity and is
considered best practice in the management of ASD
(Dillenburger et al., 2014; Lawson, 2004; Strunk et al.,
2017). However, Cox (2019) explained that true benefit
is only achieved when the collaborative efforts produce
greater outcomes than what would otherwise be achieved
by services delivered in isolation. Unfortunately, collabo-
ration in clinical practice and research is poorly under-
stood, and the lack of an intervention-oriented concept
of collaboration poses a significant problem (Lawson,
2004). Failing to effectively collaborate may result in an
incompatible mix of treatments that may produce adverse
or even harmful outcomes for clients (Cox, 2019).
Behav Analysis Practice
Misconceptions
According to Dillenburger et al. (2014), when the concept of
collaboration is misconstrued and poorly used, the team “re-
gresses into mere eclecticism”—that is, a “haphazard pick and
mix”or a “hodgepodge”of “discipline-specific interventions”
(pp. 4–5). Moreover, Schreck and Mazur (2008) described a
“buffet approach”to the treatment of ASD, wherein clients
have access to a variety of treatment options (e.g., sensory
integration, pivotal response training, facilitated communica-
tion, secretin treatments, functional communication training,
gluten-free diet) and select “a little of this or a little of that”(p.
201).
The available empirical evidence indicates that such eclec-
tic treatment packages result in limited treatment gains (see
Eikeseth et al., 2002;Howardetal.,2005; and Howard et al.,
2014, for more details). Although some component interven-
tions may be evidence based, the eclectic mix alone is not
supported by scientific research (Dillenburger, 2011;
McMahon & Cullinan, 2016). Despite these findings, eclecti-
cism continues to be sought out by consumers and sanctioned
by practitioners (Howard et al., 2005; McMahon & Cullinan,
2016). Its favor seems to rest on the idea that an eclectic
package provides access to a wider array of interventions
and the unique benefits each has to offer (Dillenburger,
2011). However, eclecticism shares characteristics of pseudo-
science whereby treatments are erroneously deemed scientific,
give false hope, and therefore maintain their popularity
(Dillenburger, 2011).
We believe that the term “multidisciplinary,”which, by
definition, describes autonomous professionals providing care
with little to no collaboration, may glamorize and disguise
eclecticism. As such, multidisciplinary practice without effec-
tive collaboration may be a dangerous approach to the treat-
ment of ASD by fostering more independently delivered
eclectic treatments. The resulting mix of eclectic interven-
tions, which are ineffective and consume more time and fi-
nancial resources, may lead to conflict among team members
(Dillenburger et al., 2014;Howardetal.,2005).
Education in Collaboration
Although more integrated care is regarded as an important
component of practice in applied behavior analysis (ABA),
the degree to which behavioral professionals are trained in
collaboration is limited (Kelly & Tincani, 2013). Kelly and
Tincani (2013) surveyed over 300 behavioral professionals,
95% of whom reported working with individuals with ASD,
and found that 67% had not taken any collaboration courses at
the university level, and 45% had not participated in
professional development activities that addressed collabora-
tive practice.
Without education or training in collaborative practice, in-
terprofessional collaboration may present challenges. The oc-
cupational differences across team members may hinder col-
laboration and result in discipline silos where professionals
operate independently and autonomously (Hall, 2005;
Strunk et al., 2017). According to Hall (2005), these disci-
pline silos commence early in the development of the pro-
fessional. Typically, at the university, multiple areas of
specialization operate in isolation, and the aspiring profes-
sional is engrossed in the knowledge and culture of their
respective discipline and distinguished by a unique identi-
ty and value system. Interprofessional collaboration is
rarely observed in academia, and interactions among stu-
dents of differing professions are not necessarily encour-
aged or facilitated. The culmination of these social and
educational experiences establishes a distinct professional
worldview (see Garman et al., 2006).
Once the student has completed the requisite education
and training, demonstrated the necessary knowledge and
skills, and adopted the values specific to the discipline,
they may assume the long-awaited occupational identity
(Hall, 2005). New professionals embrace and uphold their
identity and continue to align with the profession. Loseke
and Cahill (1986) described how this discipline persona is
significant to the professional and their practice. They
read the professional journals associated with their chosen
field, attend professional conferences in this same field,
and become members of professional organizations in
their discipline. Although all of this is important to their
continued professional development and to solidifying
their identities as practicing professionals, it also limits
their exposure to the contributions and advances in other
disciplines. It continues the silo approach that defines the
higher education experience and makes the professional
development journey an extension of this discipline-
specific perspective. Thus, in interprofessional collabora-
tion, team members often exude a distinct professional
image epitomized by their discipline-specific worldview;
this both defines and preserves the scope of their profes-
sional authority and, combined with the lack of collabo-
rative education, may catalyze the division and conflict
that are common to interprofessional teams (D’Amour
et al., 2005; Suter et al., 2009).
Conflict
Throughout their education and training, collaborating
professionals have been taught to function as autonomous
Behav Analysis Practice
and separate professionals, bearing their own language
and practices (Coben et al., 1997). The vocabulary of
the professional is used to represent their knowledge, ex-
pertise, and value (Lawson, 2004); however, it can bran-
dish the worldview and validate the occupational image.
Thus, mastery of the language of the discipline affords
entry into the guild and is often a source of pride. It can
be difficult to then move back to a lay translation, and it
may be associated with the fear of seeming weaker or less
skilled within the profession. Jargon may be used to en-
sure precision and to convey expertise. In the discipline
silo, it is expected and encouraged, but in interprofession-
al collaboration, it often becomes a barrier (Hall, 2005;
Suter et al., 2009). The use of discipline-specific jargon
highlights differences across disciplines, makes communi-
cation challenging, and might make some professionals
feel marginalized in treatment conversations. LaFrance
et al. (2019) cautioned behavior analysts specifically
against the use of terminology that may hinder collabora-
tive interactions, yet such challenges exist for all members
of the interprofessional team.
Furthermore, treatment team professionals may have op-
posing core values, fundamental goals, and approaches, espe-
cially in the selection of treatments and in the evaluation of
success (Cascio et al., 2016). Therefore, conflict seems likely
inevitable in interprofessional collaboration, and the coveted
harmony of integrated care is not so easily achieved (Brown
et al., 2011; LaFrance et al., 2019). When conflict arises, it
hinders cohesive collaborative practices by impeding the treat-
ment team’s ability to provide efficient, quality treatment and
thwarts effective client care (Brown et al., 2011; LaFrance
et al., 2019).
Role Boundary Issues
Effective collaboration requires that professionals involved in
the coordinated treatment of an individual with ASD under-
stand, recognize, and appreciate the contributions made by
other collaborating professionals (LaFrance et al., 2019).
However, the unique roles of collaborators within the treat-
ment team are rarely addressed, and disconnect between par-
ticipating professionals is frequently observed (Brown et al.,
2011;Kvarnström,2008).
Strong identities and professional cultures can create
role boundary conflicts, which form additional barriers
to collaboration (Kvarnström, 2008; Suter et al., 2009).
Role boundary issues refer to a poor understanding of
each team member’s role and the value of unique contri-
butions (Brown et al., 2011;Hall,2005; Kvarnström,
2008 ;Strunketal.,2017). When the unique knowledge
base of each profession is not fully understood, individual
members may be deprived of the opportunity to contribute
their expertise, or the contributions they make may be
devalued or even neglected (Hall, 2005;Kvarnström,
2008). Individual team members may have overlapping
practice purviews, or share specific areas of expertise,
which complicates role boundaries, makes it difficult to
understand the responsibilities of each professional, and is
therefore one of the most common sources of interprofes-
sional conflict (Brown et al., 2011; Kvarnström, 2008;
Strunk et al., 2017).
These overlapping practice areas may result in role
blurring, wherein professional boundaries are less distinct
(Hall, 2005; Sims et al., 2015; Suter et al., 2009). Some
authors have noted that ambiguity in professional roles
may pose a high risk for conflict and further division
among interprofessional teams, as it may cause workload
imbalances, confusion surrounding individual responsibil-
ities, and professional burnout (Folkman et al., 2019;
Hall, 2005; Suter et al., 2009). Contrarily, other authors
have identified role blurring as a beneficial and important
characteristic of interprofessional collaboration, as it dis-
solves discipline boundaries, expands professional knowl-
edge and expertise, allows team members to adapt to
changing circumstances and needs, and enhances overall
client care (Bennett et al., 2016;Simsetal.,2015). Role
blurring is a necessary component of transdisciplinary
collaboration (D’Amour et al., 2005). The transdisciplin-
ary team intentionally dissolves professional boundaries,
and its members reciprocate exchanges of knowledge and
competency to achieve fully integrated care for enhanced
client outcomes (D’Amour et al., 2005; Kvarnström,
2008;LaFranceetal.,2019).
Communication Failures
Problems related to role boundaries may be further complicat-
ed by issues in communication, particularly when team mem-
bers fail to convey their position or expertise and delegate
responsibilities accordingly (Suter et al., 2009). For example,
Koenig and Gerenser (2006) described the confusion that fam-
ilies experience when professionals from their child’streat-
ment team (e.g., SLP, BCBA) provide conflicting recommen-
dations. This can lead to the belief that professionals are not in
agreement on practices for best treatment, and may result in
distrust from those receiving interprofessional care. As world-
views clash and other disagreements arise, team members
must exercise skillful communication practices to quickly
and effectively resolve dissonance and present a cohesive
Behav Analysis Practice
and unified team to clients and their families (Brown et al.,
2011;Cox,2019; Suter et al., 2009).
Communication among interprofessional team members is
necessary to share knowledge, exchange ideas, and coordinate
effective care for clients. Failure to do so often results in pro-
fessionals retreating to their discipline silos (Hall, 2005;
Strunk et al., 2017; Suter et al., 2009). Discipline-specific
treatments are not delivered in a vacuum but are interdepen-
dent on one another for optimal success, and this requires
ongoing and effective communication among practitioners
(Cox, 2019).
Although communication challenges can impede effective
collaborative practices, more alarmingly they have been
linked to patient harm . Suter et al. (2009)reportedinforma-
tion from several sources stressing the potentially disastrous
consequences of poor collaboration. The Canadian Medical
Protective Association found patient safety was jeopardized
by team discord and poor communication. The Joint
Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations
reported that 65% of events resulting in patient death, perma-
nent harm, severe temporary harm, or intervention required to
sustain life were caused by failures in communication (The
Joint Commission, 2017). Additionally, when poor commu-
nication practices inhibited the sharing of information, quality
of care was diminished and patient outcomes were adversely
affected (Suter et al., 2009). Although these reports are not
specific to individuals with ASD, they illustrate the critical
need for effective and efficient communication and the grave
impact of conflict in collaboration.
Organizational Constraints
Interprofessional collaboration is often further hindered, or in
some cases prevented, by the surrounding organization
(Kvarnström, 2008;Strunketal.,2017). In its authority, the
organization may make changes to the interprofessional team
by replacing or altering the number of team members, increas-
ing client caseloads, modifying work schedules, or providing
inadequate environmental conditions (Brown et al., 2011;
Kvarnström, 2008). The team may then lack the appropriate
professionals essential to effective client care and be deprived
of the time needed for efficient communication and prompt
conflict resolution (Brown et al., 2011;Kvarnström,2008).
These organizational constraints have the potential to invoke
feelings of inadequacy, impede synergy, and obstruct quality
client care. In many cases though, team members are practic-
ing under separate organizations, and additional challenges
concerning the lack of a shared organization hinder the team’s
ability to collaborate completely.
Standards for the Transdisciplinary
Collaboration of Professionals Treating
Individuals With ASD
Given the plethora of existing barriers to effective inte-
grated care and the limited training and education in col-
laborative practices, it is apparent that standards promot-
ing a transdisciplinary model in the treatment of individ-
uals with ASD may be beneficial. Many professionals
recognize the potential advantages of interprofessional
collaboration but are challenged with developing a cohe-
sive approach. The standards provided in what follows are
meant to help navigate the pitfalls observed in collabora-
tive practice and ensure that the many benefits of trans-
disciplinary collaboration are realized. As D’Amour et al.
(2005) noted, “it is unrealistic to think that simply
bringing professionals together in teams will lead to
collaboration”(p. 126). For this reason, the purpose of
the proposed standards is to provide a set of guidelines
for collaborative practice that promote appreciation of
each discipline’s education and expertise and function
to facilitate problem solving. The Appendix displays a
self-assessment checklist that can be used by collaborat-
ing professionals to determine whether the proposed
standards are being adequately upheld.
Preamble
These standards are intended to serve as a template
for collaboration teams. Items should be added, omit-
ted, extended, and modified in a manner that best
serves the needs of the treatment team and facilitates
effective collaborative practices. The contents are as
follows:
1. Collaborative communication
1A.Open communication
1B.Sharing information
1C.Ongoing communication
1D.Active communication
1E.Informal communication
1F.Mutually understood language
2. Distinguished roles in collaboration
2A.Case coordinator
2B.Role delineation
2C.Respect of unique knowledge
3. Role of organization
3A.Necessary means
3B.Internal equality
3C.Professional environment
Behav Analysis Practice
4. Client care
4A.Visible team care
4B.Client-centered care
4C.Social validity
5. Conflict resolution
5A.Timely resolution
5B.Bringing attention to conflict
5C.Perspectives within conflict
5D.Resolution protocols
5E.Involving clients
6. Joint partnerships
6A.Professional flexibility
6B.Interdependent practice
6C.Collective ownership
7. Evidence-based practice
7A.Treatment recommendations
7B.Comprehensive approach
7C.Reliance on data
8. Collaborative culture
8A.Collaborative education and training
8B.Ethics
8C.Self-assessment
8D.Unity of purpose
Expanded Standards
1. Collaborative communication
All team members should prioritize communication by en-
suring it is open, frequent, and thorough, recalling that serious
consequences of communication failures include client harm
and interprofessional conflict. Should this standard be
breached, the treatment team should have a discussion over
the breaching, and aim to collaboratively develop a solution
for the future.
1A. Open communication
i. Individual members must openly and respectfully com-
municate, with confidence and ease, expressing any
thoughts or opinions spanning any relevant topic area
(Coben et al., 1997). The team must encourage ex-
changes by actively listening. That is, team members
must provide their full attention, refrain from
interrupting, demonstrate understanding of their col-
league’s perspective, and offer full consideration and ap-
preciation of the contributions.
1B. Sharing information
ii. Each team member must be committed to effectively and
deliberately sharing information, skills, expertise, ideas,
responsibilities, and resources to integrate the contribu-
tions of all team members and provide the most effective
client care (Bronstein, 2003;D’Amour et al., 2005;Hall,
2005;Lawson,2004).
iii. All team members, as well as clients and their families,
must be actively involved in the planning and develop-
ment of therapeutic goals. Team members must commu-
nicate deficits identified in their assessments, propose ef-
fective treatment options, and collectively design realistic,
measurable goals that honor the client’s objectives and the
team’s mission and shared vision (Bronstein, 2003).
iv. Any intervention changes must be promptly communi-
cated to all members of the collaboration team
(Newhouse-Oisten et al., 2017).
v. The reporting team member should describe any new
intervention that is under consideration by stating the
objectives or purpose of the intervention and indicating
the extent of supporting scientific evidence (Newhouse-
Oisten et al., 2017). Resources on the intervention
should be shared with all team members.
vi. Information regarding client progress or relative set-
ting events must be documented and communicated
to all team members. Data should be reported in a
central database, accessible to all members, and col-
lectively analyzed and interpreted (Newhouse-Oisten
et al., 2017).
1C. Ongoing communication
vii. The collaboration team should establish opportunities
for ongoing communication (Cox, 2019; Newhouse-
Oisten et al., 2017). They should
a. hold regularly scheduled meetings for all team mem-
bers to occur no less than monthly (Newhouse-Oisten
et al., 2017) and ensure that consistent scheduling is
maintained to enable the participation of all members.
b. schedule additional meetings as needed for select
members according to client care needs. Meetings
being held between select members should always
include an invitation to all members of the team, even
if their presence is not necessary.
c. create an email group for regular and frequent ex-
changes regarding client updates, intervention chang-
es,progress,andsoon(Newhouse-Oistenetal.,
2017).
Behav Analysis Practice
d. consider the development of an ongoing repository of
all treatment information, including summaries of in-
terprofessional meetings.
1D. Active communication
viii. Communication should take place within the context of
direct clinical work, such as cotreating sessions and
joint assessments with members from two or more dis-
ciplines (LaFrance et al., 2019).
ix. Team members should participate in team rounds regu-
larly to discuss client progress and concerns and effec-
tively coordinate client care (Suter et al., 2009).
1E. Informal communication
x. The collaboration team should provide opportunities for
informal exchanges of knowledge and information
(LaFrance et al., 2019). They should
a. hold in-service presentations and discussions hosted
by each team member, on a rotating basis,
representing the science of each discipline.
b. schedule lunch meetings to encourage friendly inter-
actions among members and allow the team to infor-
mally review and evaluate the successes and failures
of collaboration (LaFrance et al., 2019).
c. review journal articles selected by each team member,
on a rotating basis, reviewing research from their re-
spective field and allow for open discussion
(LaFrance et al., 2019).
1F. Mutually understood language
xi. Professionals will use language that is mutually under-
stood by all members of the treatment team and avoid the
use of discipline-specific jargon (Boger et al., 2017; Cox,
2019;LaFranceetal.,2019).
xii. Professionals will freely provide supplementary expla-
nations when language is not understood by other col-
laborating professionals and will assess for mutual un-
derstanding throughout communication.
2. Distinguished roles in collaboration
Team members should convey their clinical competencies
and share their unique perspectives with team members. The
discipline-specific skill sets and competence of team members
are clearly outlined and respected, while input is considered
from all team members. Should this standard be breached, the
treatment team should have a discussion over the breaching by
reviewing assigned roles. Moreover, the treatment team
should aim to collaboratively develop a solution for the future
by adjusting each member’s role as needed.
2A. Case coordinator
i. A role of case coordinator should be assigned to a separate
member of the team for each case. The case coordinator
will oversee the treatment plan, facilitate team rounds, co-
ordinate communication among members, and aid conflict
resolution when needed. The role of case coordinator may
be assigned according to expertise, the client’scoredeficit
areas, and so on as deemed appropriate (Coben et al.,
1997).
2B. Role delineation
ii. Team members must actively participate in decisions
regarding role delineation on each case by conveying
their scope of competence and how it may contribute
to the team and the care of each individual client
(Suter et al., 2009). For example, individual team
members may have discipline-specific competencies
that cannot ethically (or legally) be imparted to other
individual team members. Thus, role delineation is
not intended to be divisive, but rather ensure profes-
sionals practice within their scope of competence
while feedback and input from other team members
remain valuable.
iii. The delineation of each member’s case-specific role
should be described within the treatment plan or a sepa-
rate document if necessary and signed by each member
of the treatment team in agreement.
2C. Respect of unique knowledge
iv. Professionals should avoid competitive pride and am-
bition and should be understanding of and interested
in the value of other professionals’unique knowledge
within the collaborative team (Cox, 2012). In other
words, collaborating professionals should engage in
behavior that is indicative of their respect for the
other team members’unique knowledge, such as lis-
tening to suggestions and recommendations, being
receptive to feedback, and asking for clarification
when needed with the ultimate goal of synthesizing
varying perspectives into a collective approach.
Behav Analysis Practice
3. Role of the organization
An organization should provide the needed support in
collaborative practice and integrated care. Team members
should share resources and benefits provided by the orga-
nization and rely on the organization for training, media-
tion, and protection. Should treatment team professionals
not belong to a shared organization, this standard should
be individualized to each professional’srespective
organization.
3A. Necessary means
i. The organization should support the team by providing
the necessary means for ongoing and effective collab-
orative practices (Suter et al., 2009). This may include
a. staffing appropriate service providers.
b. permitting conjoint treatment sessions.
c. allowing time for meetings and interactions for all
disciplines.
d. providing physical space for collaboration.
e. assigning an administrator to assist with clerical
tasks and other logistical needs.
f. assisting with timely conflict resolution when
needed.
g. offering professional development courses in inter-
professional education.
h. including collaboration in the mission of treatment,
in initial training, and in ongoing professional
development.
i. encouraging research across disciplines, with each
discipline controlling certain elements of the study
as appropriate.
j. encouraging clinical protocol development across
disciplines, to address commonly encountered, com-
plex problems in systematic and evidence-based
ways.
k. holding clinical rounds in which disciplines report
on goals and progress.
l. rotating journal clubs by discipline so that all mem-
bers of the team are exposed to state-of-the-art
knowledge across disciplines.
m. holding professional development events for all
staff with speakers from different disciplines.
3B. Internal equality
ii. When possible, the organization will ensure that no mem-
ber of the team holds a direct supervisory position over
other members of the team and that all members assume
equal positions within the company. Such equality will
prevent multiple relationships on the interprofessional
team that may inhibit open communication, shared re-
sponsibilities, and the actions of the case coordinator. If
necessary, a within-discipline supervisor for each team
member may be assigned to assist and serve as a resource
in any cross-disciplinary issues.
3C. Professional environment
iii. The organization will foster an environment of profes-
sional equality where all disciplines and professionals
will be equally valued. The organization must be mindful
of ways that value may be measured and perceived by
team members (e.g., wages, duties, opportunities, and
attention) and work to ensure all professionals are
respected and appreciated.
4. Client care
The treatment team will prioritize client safety and access
to effective, integrated care while encouraging and honoring
client feedback. Should this standard be breached, the overall
welfare of the client should be immediately assessed. If the
breaching of this standard is found to impact the overall wel-
fare of the client, or cause the client harm in any way, the
intervention or professional known to be harmful should be
immediately removed, and the team should work to ensure the
client is kept safe.
4A. Visible team care
i. The team will provide “visible team care”(D’Amour et al.,
2005). In other words, recipients of services will be aware
of the collaborative efforts taking place “behind the
scenes.”Collaborative practices will be fully transparent
to promote client awareness of cohesive, integrated care.
To do this, the parents/legal guardians of clients, or the
clients themselves if of age, should be invited to team
meetings, updated on collaborative discussions frequently,
and involved in reviewing treatment plans and progress
with multiple team members.
4B. Client-centered care
Behav Analysis Practice
ii. The team will practice client-centered care by respecting
the client’s values, preferences, and needs, as well as in-
volving the client and family in shared decision making
(Barry & Edgman-Levitan, 2012; Bronstein, 2003;
Garman et al., 2006).
iii. The overarching goal of the treatment team should be to
ensure that direct recipients of services access the most
effective treatments with minimal risk of harm. The treat-
ment team should protect the client from any danger and
advocate on behalf of the client for effective treatment
and adequate care.
4C. Social validity
iv. Social validity measures should be collectively de-
signed by the collaborative team in accordance with
the team’s mission and vision. More specifically,
social validity measures should be collected on the
client’s experience receiving collaborative care, as
well as on the collaborative team’s experience de-
livering collaborative care. As social validity mea-
sures are obtained for each client, the results should
be reviewed and openly discussed during team
meetings. Modifications to current collaborative
practices should be made when necessary to ensure
social validity.
5. Conflict resolution
Any arising conflict should not impede the delivery of
effective and efficient treatment. Collaborating profes-
sionals should avoid conflict by engaging in effective
collaborative practices and exhibit professionalism in
times of disagreement. Should this standard be breached,
team members should problem solve quickly to develop
a solution that is in the best interest of the client.
Specifically, the assigned case coordinator should ar-
range for a team meeting wherein the conflict solutions
are proposed.
5A. Timely resolution
i. Conflict must be recognized and addressed promptly. Due
to its grave consequences, conflict cannot be avoided or
ignored.
5B. Bringing attention to conflict
ii. Those who are aware of conflict must bring it to the at-
tention of the team. Parties involved must skillfully nego-
tiate their differences under the leadership of the case
coordinator (Brown et al., 2011; Suter et al., 2009).
5C. Perspectives within conflict
iii. The team must openly and humbly discuss conflict, ac-
knowledge the perspectives of all members, and cooper-
atively identify solutions (Brown et al., 2011; Coben
et al., 1997).
5D. Resolution protocols
iv. The team should develop and use conflict resolution pro-
tocols based on common sources of conflict. For exam-
ple, decision-making models such as those provided by
Brodhead (2015)andNewhouse-Oistenetal.(2017)may
be useful in assessing conflicting intervention proposals.
5E. Involving clients
v. Clients should not be involved in conflict resolution. The
team is expected to maintain a unified appearance
throughout client interactions. If a client’s perspective is
needed to appropriately resolve conflict (e.g., opposing
treatment recommendations), this should be done in the
most professional manner and only after all team members
have consented.
6. Joint partnerships
Treatment team members should develop joint part-
nerships by engaging in close interactions, accepting
shared responsibilities, and exhibiting trust and respect
for all members of the team, their role, science, and
discipline (D’Amour et al., 2005). All team members
should value others’unique knowledge base and en-
courage creativity. The treatment team should provide
a work environment that promotes unity and fosters a
culture of respect and ethical practice. Should this stan-
dard be breached, team members should have a discus-
sion regarding the importance of joint partnerships with-
in collaboration and work cooperatively to develop a
plan that will encourage unity within the treatment
team.
6A. Professional flexibility
Behav Analysis Practice
i. Professionals will demonstrate flexibility by obscuring the
traditional role boundaries that typically exist between
disciplines.
ii. Members should extend their role by increasing their
knowledge and skills within their respective fields, ex-
pand their role by learning from the other disciplines,
and release their role by sharing their own expertise with
other members (Thylefors et al., 2005).
iii. Professionals should engage in close interactions and ac-
cept joint responsibilities (D’Amour et al., 2005).
Members should adapt under fluctuating conditions and
the needs of interprofessional treatment by
complementing other team members and adjusting to
their strengths and weaknesses (Bronstein, 2003;
Thyleforsetal.,2005).
6B. Interdependent practice
iv. Members should abandon philosophies of autonomy
and demonstrate a mutual dependence on one anoth-
er to promote cooperative interactions and maximize
client outcomes (Bronstein, 2003;Cox,2019;
D’Amour et al., 2005; Thylefors et al., 2005).
Effective client care is obtained through collabora-
tive practice when members rely on one another to
fulfill their role and complete professional tasks
(Bronstein, 2003;D’Amour et al., 2005; Thylefors
et al., 2005).
v. All team members should practice within their boundaries
of competence and be transparent and honest when inter-
ventions or proposed treatments appear to be outside of
one’s scope of competence.
vi. Members should be confident in their own role and the
value they bring to the team and understand the role of
other members and the benefit of their contributions
(Bronstein, 2003).
6C. Collective ownership
vii. The team must assume collective ownership of all struc-
tures, programs, plans, tasks, goals, interventions, data,
and overall client care (Bronstein, 2003;D’Amour et al.,
2005). The decision making, problem solving, conflict
resolution, accountability, philosophies, and values must
be shared by all team members and require a joint un-
dertaking as part of the collaborative process (D’Amour
et al., 2005).
7. Evidence-based practice
The team should be firmly committed to evidence-based
practices and should openly renounce pseudoscience and re-
ject those interventions that have proven to be harmful or
ineffective. Should this standard be breached, or should a
breach be suspected, the case coordinator should promptly
schedule a meeting for team members to discuss existing lit-
erature on the proposed intervention and consider client values
and context.
7A. Treatment recommendations
i. Individual team members must recommend treatments
that (a) do not put the client in any danger and will not
cause harm; (b) are empirically supported, financially
reasonable, and easy to access; and (c) are effective,
plausible, and feasible to adhere to. Should team mem-
bers recommend treatments that do not meet the afore-
mentioned criteria, a team meeting should be held
wherein collaborative members review the interven-
tion according to the specified criteria (see Brodhead,
2015). Ideally, members should unanimously consent
to the recommendation. If members disagree, the rea-
sons for rejection should be openly discussed. A time-
limited pilot test of the intervention may be imple-
mented, and continuation may be determined follow-
ing thorough data analysis.
7B. Comprehensive approach
ii. Evidence-based practice will include using evidence pro-
vided by high-quality research, the professional expertise
provided by the team members, and the values, needs, and
preferences of the client (DiGennaro Reed et al., 2018).
iii. Although individual disciplines may adhere to differing
levels of scientific evidence, the team as a whole must
subscribe to standards of evidence that will be used to
evaluate research studies.
a. Research criteria for established interventions should
include a thorough description of the treatment
methods, a profile for each participant, and two ran-
domized control trials or nine single-case research
designs conducted across two or more research teams
(DiGennaro Reed et al., 2018).
b. The team should use resources such as systematic
reviews and meta-analyses to review the available
evidence on specific interventions. Otherpublications
such as the National Standards Project by the
Behav Analysis Practice
National Autism Center at May Institute and the
Evidence Maps produced by the American Speech-
Language-Hearing Association have assembled sci-
entific data on various interventions and are intended
to guide decisions for effective treatment.
iv. If an intervention with minimal empirical support has
been identified as potentially beneficial, the team should
become familiar with the treatment by consulting any
corresponding position statements, reviewing available
research, or discussing with team members and other
experts (Brodhead, 2015). If evidence of harm is found,
the intervention should not be used (Brodhead, 2015). If
the treatment does not pose a risk to the client’ssafety,
the efficacy of the intervention may be evaluated through
a single-subject research design within the context of
treatment, wherein procedural and fidelity measures are
operationally defined. The team should discuss the risks
and potential benefits with the client, gather informed
consent, implement appropriate data collection methods,
and make treatment decisions following a thorough anal-
ysis of the data.
7C. Reliance on data
v. As scientists, team members should always yield to
the data. Data should be collected on all interventions
by the appropriate members of the team. Data should
be analyzed frequently to assess client performance,
and modifications to treatment programming should
be made accordingly.
Collaborative Culture
The collaborative culture is created through the open commu-
nication, joint partnerships, and interdependent practice of the
team members. It is rooted in a shared ethical code (Cox,
2012) and nurtured through frequent evaluation of integrated
care and continuous education in collaborative practice. At the
heart of the collaborative culture is the team’s unity of pur-
pose, which explains the goals of the team and the reason for
their existence (Lawson, 2004).
8A. Collaborative education and training
i. The team should collectively engage in professional de-
velopment devoted to client-centered care and interpro-
fessional collaboration.
ii. Members should read published articles in journals asso-
ciated with the profession of other team members (e.g.,
speech-language pathology, ABA, medicine; Koenig &
Gerenser, 2006).
iii. Team members may attend professional conferences
from other disciplines and encourage transdisciplinary
presentations at such conferences.
8B. Ethics
iv. Each member should publicly share their code of ethics,
and all codes should be cross-referenced for commonal-
ities and differences (see Cox, 2012). Although many
codes will coincide, the differences will be noted, and
the team should adopt and adhere to the most stringent
codes to preserve unity within the team.
v. Quarterly ethics-related professional development
events should be used to increase understanding and
facilitate discussion among team members.
8C. Self-assessment
vi. Team members must assess their individual collabo-
ration competency, accept feedback from clients and
other team members, and use the information to im-
prove their collaborative interactions and practices.
To maintain the highest standards of practice, the
team should conduct self-assessments of collabora-
tion (see the Appendix).
vii. The team will review client outcomes and social validity
measures. If the results are not positive, the team must look
to the collaborative processes (Kelly & Tincani, 2013).
viii. Teams will also assess the degree of their collaborative
practices and determine where they fall on the spectrum
of interprofessional collaboration (Figure 1).
ix. Teams should use additional assessment items, such as
conflict resolution protocols and formal interprofessional
rating scales, or a custom scale may be developed accord-
ing to the standards for transdisciplinary collaboration.
8D. Unity of purpose
x. The unity of purpose is a common purpose, shared
by all team members, that cannot be successfully
accomplished without true interdependence
(Lawson, 2004). The unity of purpose should be at
thecoreoftheteam’s function and may be illustrat-
ed in a mission statement: Themissionofthetrans-
disciplinary team is to produce measurable gains
and maximize outcomes for individuals with ASD
by combining and capitalizing on the expertise of
multiple disciplines. To that end, we commit to func-
tion as a cohesive and collaborative unit, accentuat-
ing the strengths of our members, and sharing evi-
dence from our respective sciences to provide supe-
rior integrated care.
Behav Analysis Practice
Discussion
Although the proposed standards may promote more effective
and efficient collaboration, there are potential limitations to
the total use of them. First, the recommendations provided
for the breaching of specific standards are brief. Additional
recommendations regarding the most effective problem-
solving strategies to be used in the event of breaching are
needed and would be a valuable contribution. Second, adher-
ence to the standards overall, especially pertaining to the role
of the organization, may prove challenging, as treatment team
members are frequently employed by separate and indepen-
dent organizations. Thus, we recommend that interprofession-
al team members operate under a single organization wherein
that organization values the collaborative efforts of the treat-
ment team and provides additional support in achieving opti-
mal integrated care. In this context, the use of the standards is
likely to be morefeasible. We challenge large organizations to
consider the benefits of employing professionals from varying
fields (e.g., medicine, psychology, speech, ABA) and facili-
tate a transdisciplinary approach.
Third, some of the proposed standards require that treatment
team members spend additional time and effort to make collab-
oration successful. Therefore, it is important to identify ways in
which professionals can be best motivated to achieve successful
collaboration using the proposed standards. Moreover, collab-
oration is not universally taught to students of human service
disciplines (see Kelly & Tincani, 2013); hence, many enter the
workforce ill equipped to effectively engage in interprofession-
al collaboration. Within behavior analysis, students are largely
trained to value and exude the worldview of radical behavior-
ism. At times, the adherence to this worldview may appear (to
members of other professions) to diminish the contributions of
other perspectives. Given this lack of training in collaboration at
the education level, it is important to identify ways to develop
repertoires that would increase the probability that team mem-
bers will adopt the proposed standards.
In addition, the skills embedded in these standards are com-
plex and need to be systematically defined and taught. It is our
hope that discussing this as a goal across professions will lead
to progress in the definition, refinement, and instruction of
these skills. Within behavior analysis, attempts should be
made to operationally define and measure these skills, use
behavioral skills training or the teaching interaction procedure
to teach practitioners these skills, and develop rubrics to assess
the demonstration of these skills.Including collaborative com-
petencies in the scope of training for behavior analysts would
help ensure that new practitioners are familiar with and can
demonstrate the essential component skills. Expanding the
focus of training and supervision to include interprofessional
collaboration would ensure that students and trainees in be-
havior analysis are coached in this crucial area well before
they are expected to perform in transdisciplinary contexts.
Indeed, other soft skills have recently been highlighted as
relevant and essential for behavior analysts (e.g.,
compassionate care skills and cultural humility; Taylor et al.,
2018;Wright,2019). Finally, we recognize that these stan-
dards for effective collaboration may present as somewhat
idealistic, but the hope is that they offer organizations and
professionals a basis for developing cooperative partnerships
that promote superior care and access to empirically supported
interventions for individuals with ASD.
Conclusion
The prevalence rate of individuals diagnosed with ASD has
been steadily increasing over the last 20 years, and at the time
of this writing is currently 1 in 59(Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, n.d.). Therefore, the need for effective and
efficient interprofessional collaboration is greater than ever
and is gaining attention within the field of behavior analysis
on both individual and organizational levels. For example, the
Professional and Ethical Compliance Code for Behavior
Analysts enjoins cooperative interprofessional practice to ap-
propriately serve clients (Behavior Analyst Certification
Board, 2014, Section 2.03). The Behavioral Health Center
of Excellence encourages interprofessional collaboration
within their standards for accreditation as a high-quality, eth-
ical, and efficacious applied behavior-analytic organization
(Behavioral Health Center of Excellence, 2019). We contend
that a transdisciplinary approach to collaboration affords treat-
ment team members the opportunity to work together in cre-
ating the most meaningful change and greatest possible im-
pact. The purpose of this article was to describe the current
need for effective interprofessional collaboration and provide
clear criteria that promote transdisciplinary care in the service
provision for individuals with ASD. Other needed outcomes
may be supported by the standards. For example, the impact
of transdisciplinary practice on treatment gains could be ex-
plored in empirical research. Additionally, future research
should investigate the components of the proposed standards
and the effects of modifying the standards on the overall col-
laborative experience and client outcomes. The proposed stan-
dards for transdisciplinary treatment could also help in the
creation of training modules in this important area, especially
in the context of both academic course content and in the
provision of supervised experience.
Behav Analysis Practice
Appendix
Standards Adherence Self-Assessment Checklist
Assessing the Collaboration of Treatment Team Professionals in the Treatment of Individuals
with ASD
A checklist for collaborating professionals to determine if transdisciplinary practice is being used to maximize the delivery of
effective and efficient treatment.
The purpose of this self-assessment is to provide an evaluation of transdisciplinary collaboration by
indicating the treatment team’s adherence to the standards using a Likert scale. This checklist is to be
completed by the treatment team during a team meeting.
1 (never) 2 (rarely) 3 (sometimes) 4 (often) 5 (always)
Collaborative Communication
Thoughts or opinions are openly expressed and received by treatment-team
members.
12345
Assessment results are shared by team members and interventions are
collectively designed
12345
Data and assessments are accessible to all team members. 12345
Monthly meetings take place wherein all team members are present. 12345
Literature across disciplines is shared and reviewed by team members regularly. 12345
The language used by team members is mutually understood, and any
language that is not understood is made clear through explanation.
12345
Cotreatment and joint assessments occur. 12345
Score
Distinguished Roles in Collaboration
A case coordinator is assigned for each case. 12345
Each team members’ role, specific practice area, and contribution is clearly
delineated.
12345
Each team members’ scope of competence is clearly understood. 12345
Respect of each member’s unique knowledge and contribution is demonstrated. 12345
Behav Analysis Practice
Score
Role of the
Organization
All members of the treatment team hold equal positions, and no member
holds a direct supervisory position over other members
1
2
3
4
5
All disciplines and professions are equally valued.
1
2
3
4
5
Score
Client Care
Visible team care is provided wherein recipients of services are aware of
the team’s collaborative efforts.
1
2
3
4
5
The client’s values, preferences, and needs are considered by all team members.
1
2
3
4
5
Social validity measures are collectively designed in accordance with the
team’s mission and vision.
1
2
3
4
5
Social validity measures are obtained for each client.
1
2
3
4
5
Score
Conflict Resolution
Conflict is addressed promptly by being brought to the attention of the team
for resolution.
1
2
3
4
5
The perspectives of all treatment-team members are considered when
problem solving through conflict.
1
2
3
4
5
Score
Joint Partnerships
Team members obscure discipline-specific role boundaries and
exhibit mutual dependence.
1
2
3
4
5
Team members practice within their boundaries of competence.
1
2
3
4
5
The team assumes collective ownership of programs, data, and overall client
care.
1
2
3
4
5
Behav Analysis Practice
Score
Evidence-Based
Practice
Team members are firmly committed to evidence-based practice. 12345
Team members’ recommendations are effective, reasonable, and feasible. 12345
Resources that have reviewed the scientific data on various treatments for
ASD are used in decision making regarding courses of action in treatment.
12345
Data are collected on all interventions. 12345
Score
Collaborative Culture
Team members participate in continuing education events devoted to
interprofessional collaboration.
12345
Each collaborating discipline’s code of ethics is shared with the other team
members and the most stringent codes are adopted by the team.
12345
Team members assess their individual collaboration competency and are
accepting of feedback from clients and other team members.
12345
A shared unity of purpose exists and is at the core of the team’s function. 12345
Score
Scoring
Add the circled responses for each section to obtain section scores. Below are section scores that
indicate standards have been adequately upheld.
Collaborative Communication –– A score of 28 or more
Distinguished Roles in Collaboration –– A score of 17 or more
Role of the Organization – A score of 8 or more
Client Care –– A score of 18 or more
Conflict Resolution –– A score of 9 or more
Joint Partnerships –– A score of 13 or more
Evidence-Based Practice –– A score of 17 or more
Collaborative Culture –– A score of 15 or more
A cumulative score of 125 or more indicates the collaborative practice aligns with a transdisciplinary
approach.
Cumulative Score
Behav Analysis Practice
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Informed consent Informed consent was not applicable as this review
did not involve human participants.
Conflict of interest The authors declare they have no conflict of interest.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders (5th ed.).10.1176/
appi.books.9780890425596
Barry, M. J., & Edgman-Levitan, S. (2012). Shared decision making—
The pinnacle of patient-centered care. New England Journal of
Medicine,366(9), 780–781. https://doi.org/10.1056/
NEJMp1109283
Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (2014). Professional and ethical
compliance code for behavior analysts.https://www.bacb.com/wp-
content/uploads/BACB-Compliance-Code-english_190318.pdf
Behavioral Health Center of Excellence. (2019). Standards for effective
applied behavior analysis organizations. https://bhcoe.org/
standards/
Bennett, E., Hauck, Y., Radford, G., & Bindahneem, S. (2016). An in-
terprofessional exploration of nursing and social work roles when
working jointly with families. Journal of Interprofessional Care,
30(2), 232–237. https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2015.1115755.
Bernstein, J. H. (2015). Transdisciplinarity: A review of its origins, de-
velopment, and current issues. Journal of Research Practice, 11(1),
1–20 https://bit.ly/3dOcaJE.
Boger, J., Jackson, P., Mulvenna, M., Sixsmith, J., Sixsmith, A.,
Mihailidis, A., Kontos, P., Miller Polgar, J., Grigorovich, A., &
Martin, S. (2017). Principles for fostering the transdisciplinary de-
velopment of assistive technologies. Disability and Rehabilitation:
Assistive Technology, 12(5), 480–490. https://doi.org/10.3109/
17483107.2016.1151953.
Brodhead, M. T. (2015). Maintaining professional relationships in an
interdisciplinary setting: Strategies for navigating nonbehavioral
treatment recommendations for individuals with autism. Behavior
Analysis in Practice, 8(1), 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-
015-0042-7.
Bronstein, L. (2003). A model for interdisciplinary collaboration. Social
Work, 48(3), 297–306. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/48.3.297.
Brown, J., Lewis, L., Ellis, K., Stewart, M., Freeman, T. R., & Kasperski,
M. J. (2011). Conflict on interprofessional primary health care
teams—Can it be resolved? Journal of Interprofessional Care,
25(1), 4–10. https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2010.497750.
Cascio, C. J., Woynaroski, T., Baranek, G. T., & Wallace, M. T. (2016).
Toward an interdisciplinary approach to understanding sensory
function in autism spectrum disorder. Autism Research, 9(9), 920–
925. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.1612.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). Data & statistics.
https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html
Choi, B. C. K., & Pak, A. W. P. (2006). Multidisciplinarity, interdisci-
plinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, educa-
tion and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effective-
ness. Clinical and Investigative Medicine, 29(6), 351–364 https://
bit.ly/3sLmTZv.
Coben, S., Thomas, C., Sattler, R., & Morsink, C. (1997). Meeting the
challenge of consultation and collaboration: Developing interactive
teams. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 4(30), 427–432. https://doi.
org/10.1177/002221949703000409.
Collin, A. (2009). Multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplin-
ary collaboration: Implications for vocational psychology.
International Journal for Educational & Vocational Guidance,
9(2), 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10775-009-9155-2.
Cox, D. J. (2012). From interdisciplinary to integrated care of the child
with autism: The essential role for a code of ethics. Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42(12), 2729–2738. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10803-012-1530-z.
Cox, D. J. (2019). Ethical considerations in interdisciplinary treatments.
In R. D. Rieske (Ed.), Handbook of interdisciplinary treatments for
autism spectrum disorder (pp. 49–61). Springer International
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13027-5_4
D’Amour, D., Ferrada-Videla, M., San Martin Rodriguez, L., &
Beaulieu, M.-D. (2005). The conceptual basis for interprofessional
collaboration: Core concepts and theoretical frameworks. Journal of
Interprofessional Care, 19(Suppl. 1), 116–131. https://doi.org/10.
1080/13561820500082529.
DiGennaro Reed, F., Novak, M. D., Henley, A. J., Brand, D., &
McDonald, M. E. (2018). Evidence based interventions. In J. B.
Leaf (Ed.), Handbook of social skills and autism spectrum disorder
(pp. 139-153). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.
1007/978-3-319-62995-7_9.
Dillenburger, K. (2011). The emperor’s new clothes: Eclecticism in au-
tism treatment. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5(3), 1119–
1128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2010.12.008.
Dillenburger, K., Röttgers, H.-R., Dounavi, K., Sparkman, C., Keenan,
M., Thyer, B., & Nikopoulos, C. (2014). Multidisciplinary team-
work in autism: Can one size fit all? The Australian Educational
and Developmental Psychologist, 31(2), 97–112. https://doi.org/10.
1017/edp.2014.13.
Eikeseth, S., Smith, T., Jahr, E., & Eldevik, S. (2002). Intensive behav-
ioral treatment at school for 4- to 7-year-old children with autism: A
1-year comparison controlled study. Behavior Modification, 26(1),
49–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445502026001004.
Folkman, A. K., Tveit, B., & Sverdrup, S. (2019). Leadership in inter-
professional collaboration in health care. Journal of
Multidisciplinary Healthcare, 12,97–107. https://doi.org/10.2147/
JMDH.S189199.
Garman, A., Leach, D., & Spector, N. (2006). Worldviews in collision:
Conflict and collaboration across professional lines. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 27(7), 829–849. https://doi.org/10.1002/
job.394.
Gehlert, S., Murray, A., Sohmer, D., McClintock, M., Conzen, S., &
Olopade, O. (2010). The importance of transdisciplinary collabora-
tions for understanding and resolving health disparities. Social Work
in Public Health, 25(3), 408–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19371910903241124.
Hall, P. (2005). Interprofessional teamwork: Professional cultures as bar-
riers. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 19(Suppl. 1), 188–196.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820500081745.
Howard, J. S., Sparkman, C. R., Cohen,H. G., Green, G., & Stanislaw, H.
(2005). A comparison of intensive behavior analytic and eclectic
treatments for young children with autism. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 26(4), 359–383. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ridd.2004.09.005.
Howard, J. S., Stanislaw, H., Green, G., Sparkman, C. R., & Cohen,H. G.
(2014). Comparison of behavior analytic and eclectic early interven-
tions for young children with autism after three years. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 35(12), 3326–3344. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ridd.2014.08.021.
The Joint Commission. (2017). Sentinel event policy and procedures.
http://www.jointcommission.org/sentinel_event_policy_and_
procedures/
Kelly, A., & Tincani, M. (2013). Collaborative training and practice
among applied behavior analysts who support individuals with
Behav Analysis Practice
autism spectrum disorder. Education and Training in Autism and
Developmental Disabilities, 48(1), 120–131 https://bit.ly/3sLmJRT.
Koenig, M., & Gerenser, J. (2006). SLP-ABA: Collaborating to support
individuals with communication impairments. The Journal of
Speech and Language Pathology –Applied Behavior Analysis,
1(1), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100180.
Kvarnström, S. (2008). Difficulties in collaboration: A critical incident
study of interprofessional healthcare teamwork. Journal of
Interprofessional Care, 22(2), 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13561820701760600.
LaFrance, D., Weiss, M., Kazemi, E., Gerenser, J., & Dobres, J. (2019).
Multidisciplinary teaming: Enhancing collaboration through in-
creased understanding. Behavior Analysis in Practice. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s40617-019-00331-y.
Lawson, H. A. (2004). The logic of collaboration in education and the
human services. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 18(3), 225–237.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820410001731278.
Loseke, D., & Cahill, S. (1986). Actors in search of a character: Student
social workers’quest for professional identity.Symbolic Interaction,
9(2), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1525/si.1986.9.2.245.
McMahon, J., & Cullinan, V. (2016). Exploring eclecticism: The impact
of educational theory on the development and implementation of
comprehensive education programs (CEPs) for young children with
autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Research in Autism Spectrum
Disorders, 32,1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2016.07.005.
Newhouse-Oisten, M., Peck, K., Conway, A., & Frieder, J. (2017).
Ethical considerations for interdisciplinary collaboration with pre-
scribing professionals. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 10(2), 145–
153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-017-0184-x.
Schreck, K., & Mazur, A. (2008). Behavior analyst use of and beliefs in
treatments for people with autism. Behavioral Interventions, 23(3),
201–212. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.264.
Sims, S., Hewitt, G., & Harris, R. (2015). Evidence of collaboration,
pooling of resources, learning, and role blurring in interprofessional
healthcare teams: A realist synthesis. Journal of Interprofessional
Care, 29(1), 20–25. https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2014.
939745.
Strunk, J., Leisen, M., & Schubert, C. (2017). Using a multidisciplinary
approach with children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder.
Journal of Interprofessional Education & Practice, 8,60–68.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xjep.2017.03.009.
Suter,E.,Arndt,J.,Arthur,N.,Parboosingh,J.,Taylor,E.,&
Deutschlander, S. (2009). Role understanding and effective commu-
nication as core competencies for collaborative practice. Journal of
Interprofessional Care, 23(1), 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13561820802338579.
Taylor, B. A., LeBlanc, L. A., & Nosik, M. R. (2018). Compassionate
care in behavior analytic treatment: Can outcomes be enhanced by
attending to relationships with caregivers? Behavior Analysis in
Practice, 12(3), 654–666. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-018-
00289-3.
Thylefors, I., Persson, O., & Hellström, D. (2005). Team types,perceived
efficiency and team climate in Swedish cross-professional team-
work. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 19(2), 102–114. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13561820400024159.
Wright, P. I. (2019). Cultural humility in the practice of applied behavior
analysis. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 12(4), 805–809. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s40617-019-00343-8.
Zablotsky, B., Black, L., Maenner, M., Schieve, L., & Blumberg, S.
(2015). Estimated prevalence of autism and other developmental
disabilities following questionnaire changes in the 2014 National
Health Interview Survey. National Health Statistics Report, 87,1–
21 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr087.pdf.
Publisher’sNote Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Behav Analysis Practice