Tarbox et al. (2020) offered preliminary functional analyses and practical guidelines for incorporating acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) within the scope of practice of applied behavior analysis (ABA). Although we agree that this is a needed goal, the approach taken by the authors gives rise to important conceptual, ethical, and practical concerns that warrant further discussion. In particular, we propose that explicit functional assessment of behavior (FA) is necessary in any intervention said to be ABA, and we wonder about the apparent omission of explicit FA throughout the article. We question what we read as the authors’ tacit assertion that the functions of verbal stimuli can be inferred based on behavioral topography, that the function of verbal behavior can likewise be inferred based on form, and that behavior–behavior relations are both causal and predictive of behavior, irrespective of context. Furthermore, we consider whether a number of procedures for functional assessment presented in the article under consideration are consistent with established ABA best practices. Finally, we discuss the extent to which ACT interventions absent explicit FA in ABA interventions introduces the possibility that the interventions may do harm, arguing that further discussion around competence and scope of ethical practice for behavior analysts who wish to incorporate ACT into their work is needed.

Tarbox 等人。(2020) 提供了初步的功能分析和实用指南，将接受和承诺疗法 (ACT) 纳入应用行为分析 (ABA) 的实践范围。尽管我们同意这是一个必要的目标，但作者采取的方法引起了重要的概念、伦理和实际问题，值得进一步讨论。特别是，我们建议在任何被称为 ABA 的干预措施中，明确的行为功能评估 (FA) 都是必要的，我们想知道整篇文章明显遗漏了明确的 FA。我们质疑我们所读到的作者默认的断言，即语言刺激的功能可以根据行为地形推断出来，语言行为的功能同样可以根据形式推断出来，并且行为-行为关系是行为的因果关系和预测行为，与上下文无关。此外，我们考虑了本文中提出的一些功能评估程序是否与已建立的 ABA 最佳实践一致。最后，我们讨论了 ABA 干预中缺乏明确 FA 的 ACT 干预在多大程度上引入了干预可能造成伤害的可能性，认为需要进一步讨论希望将 ACT 纳入其工作的行为分析师的能力和道德实践范围.