ArticleBehavior analysis in practice2026
#ContentAnalysisofABAonTwitter/X: Finding Behavior Analysis' Heart on Social Media.
Article in Behavior analysis in practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Collecting data on social topics by analyzing verbal behavior on social media is a modern approach to assessing social validity. Given the evolving public perception related to applied behavior analysis (ABA), we sought to gain an objective understanding of online discourse related to the field. In an earlier project, we explored the relevance and sentiment (i.e., positive, negative, neutral) of a stratified sample of Twitter/X posts related to ABA (e.g., #ABA, #BehaviorAnalysis, #appliedbehaviouranalysis) across 11 years (2012-2022). Tweets with negative sentiment garnered engagement scores that were about three times higher than those of positive and neutral tweets. However, the nature of the discourse was unknown. In the present study, we extended the results by conducting a content analysis of a subsample of tweets categorized as indicating either a bias toward or against ABA. Tweets supporting ABA focused on promotion, positive effects on recipients, effective procedures, financial support, and ethical practices. Tweets against ABA highlighted harmful effects on recipients, criticisms of specific procedures, ableist assumptions, and general anti-ABA sentiments. The results were interpreted according to social validity and invalidity, and disability studies perspectives. Our findings have meaningful social implications for ABA practitioners, those who access our services, and the general public.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.