Complexity Rating

 
Scenario:

The client, Z, is a 19-year-old woman in high school, with a diagnosis of mild developmental disability, a history of sexual abuse, and was a “crack baby” at birth. Z has excellent communication skills and does well at school.

Last month, there was an incident in which it was discovered that Z was not getting on the school bus in the mornings from her group home to get to school, and instead, she was walking to school, meeting with a man on her way and having sex with him behind some bushes in his front yard. In the past, Z has invited male strangers into the group home to have sex. Upon learning about this most recent incident, a female staff member at the group home talked to Z about safe sex and the group home manager even said that he could allow Z to have sex in her bedroom at the group home, however there are young foster children in the group home, so that could be an issue.

You are a BCBA called in to work with this client. Your supervisor has suggested that the plan be to give the client condoms and pay for her to use a motel room.

As the BCBA, you don’t agree with directing the client to a motel as a replacement behaviour. You don’t think that the client should be encouraged to have sex with strangers. You are trying to develop a behaviour program for the client, but you can’t create a replacement behaviour that suits the client.

Scenario adapted from Ethics and Professional Issues in ABA by Jon Bailey, EAB5780

1. Complete the Complexity Rating Chart – indicate which level the case is at for each column (you can do this by highlighting or changing the font colour to red — do not insert circles as they shift) and then assign an overall rating at the bottom of the chart. You do not need to elaborate on your ratings as part of question 1; you will do this in the next question. (4 marks)

Bailey and Burch Ethics for Behavior Analysts ©
Complexity Rating Scale
(0.5) (0.5) (0.5) (0.5) (0.5) (0.5)
Complexity Ethics Code and/or client’s right violation Probability of physical, psychological harm (minor to severe) Solutions within one’s authority/multiple steps required Serious office or agency conflicts Legal issues and/or lawsuits Risk to consultant
Level 1 Minor No harm Within authority None None None
Level 2 Moderate violations Some probability of harm Within authority None None None
Level 3 Serious violations Increased probability of harm Within authority None None None
Level 4 Serious violations Probability of harm Not within authority None None None
Level 5 Serious violations High probability of harm Not within authority, multiple steps required Some conflict None Some risk
Level 6 Serious violations Harm is imminent Not within authority, multiple steps required Serious conflict Legal issues Serious risk

(1) Overall Rating Level:
2. Explain why you chose the overall rating that you did. This should be a paragraph in which you summarize the levels you selected in the chart for each column, explain why you selected each level (give examples from the scenario), and describe how those levels contribute to the overall rating. Reference the lecture content and Bailey & Burch as applicable. (6 marks)