Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41080012›Full record

ArticleBehavior analysis in practice2025

Assessing the Reliability of and Preference for an Ethical Decision Model.

Lauren Beaulieu, Daniel A Almeida, Corina Jimenez-Gomez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior analysis in practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Lauren BeaulieuNewton Public Schools, Newton, MA USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7457-8727
Daniel A AlmeidaCambridge College and Beacon ABA Services, Boston, MA USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9527-0470
Corina Jimenez-GomezUniversity of Florida, Gainesville, FL USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4828-9267

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Promoting ethical behavior among behavior analysts is important to enhance the quality of services. One method to enhance ethical decision making is using a decision model; however, there is limited research evaluating decision models to address ethical dilemmas in behavior analysis. This study used an online survey to investigate ethical decision making. Seventy-five board certified behavior analysts (BCBAs) were presented with scenarios that posed ethical dilemmas. During baseline, participants were instructed to use their own method to identify solutions to the ethical dilemmas and identify factors that led to their decision. Following exposure to a decision-making model, participants were instructed to choose between their method ("My Way") or the decision model prior to solving additional ethical dilemmas via a concurrent chain arrangement. The results showed considerable variability in ethical decisions across participants, with an increase in reliability when using the decision model. However, participants preferred using their own method over the decision model, and preference varied based on years of experience and cultural variables (race, gender identity).

Indexed as

concurrent chaincultural responsivenessdecision modelsethical decision makingethics

Identifiers

PMID41080012
PMCPMC12508405

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.