Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31976281›Full record

ArticleBehavior analysis in practice2019

Multidisciplinary Teaming: Enhancing Collaboration through Increased Understanding.

Danielle L LaFrance, Mary Jane Weiss, Ellie Kazemi, Joanne Gerenser, Jacqueline Dobres

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior analysis in practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Defining Collaborative Practices in Behavior Analysis.Behavior analysis in practice · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Danielle L LaFranceH.O.P.E. Consulting, 7949 California Avenue, Fair Oaks, CA 95628-7101 USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6089-6580
Mary Jane Weiss2ABA/Autism Studies Program, Endicott College, Beverly, MA USA.
Ellie Kazemi3California State University, Northridge, CA USA.
Joanne GerenserEden II Program, Staten Island, NY USA.
Jacqueline Dobres5Douglass Developmental Disabilities Center, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In an effort to provide clarity about the unique contributions of several professions within the context of multidisciplinary treatment, we reviewed the definitions, philosophical underpinnings, and national requirements pertaining to both scopes of practice (i.e., model licensing acts, legislation, and regulatory boards) and training (i.e., task lists, accreditation standards and course requirements, and exam blueprints) of 4 behavioral health professions. The professions we selected (behavior analysis, psychology, speech-language pathology, and occupational therapy) are likely to provide treatment alongside one another and often to the same clients. In a review of documents pertaining to scopes of practice and training for each profession, we found overlapping content. However, the similarities between professions diminished when we reviewed more specific guidelines such as learning objectives, educational requirements (i.e., coursework), supervised clinical experience (e.g., internships), and national examinations. This was especially true when considering each profession's underlying approach to treatment (i.e., philosophical underpinnings) and, hence, service activities. We discuss our findings in light of service overlap and make a call for greater collaboration between professions, as related to the separate content knowledge and expertise of professionals in each field and the impact on client outcomes.

Indexed as

CollaborationMultidisciplinary teamsPractice documentsScope of practiceScope of trainingTreatment

Identifiers

PMID31976281
PMCPMC6743510

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.