Beyond Social Validity: Using Qualitative Methods to Understand Clients’ Real Lives

ABA has long relied on data-driven methods, but numbers alone can miss what matters most to the people we serve. This paper makes a compelling case for adding qualitative approaches—interviews, open-ended questions, and genuine listening—to better understand how a client’s overlapping identities shape their experiences and needs. For clinicians, the takeaway isn’t to abandon measurement, but to gather richer context so our interventions actually fit.

What Is the Research Question, and Why Does It Matter?

The paper asks a practical question: How can ABA researchers and clinicians use qualitative methods, with an intersectional lens, to better understand clients’ real lives and make interventions fit?

“Intersectional” means a person’s identities overlap—race, disability, gender, language, income, religion, and more. These overlaps shape what resources someone has, how others treat them, and what they’ve learned over time. If we ignore these parts of someone’s life, we risk misunderstanding why behavior happens and what supports will actually work.

This matters because ABA has faced criticism for prioritizing compliance and “normal” behavior over goals that match what autistic people and other marginalized groups actually want. The authors argue that moving beyond typical social validity rating scales can help us listen better and reduce harm.

Qualitative work captures things checklists miss: fear of services, past discrimination, family stress, cultural values around independence and communication. The point isn’t to stop using data—it’s to get better context so we choose goals and procedures that are more respectful and more likely to stick.

What Did the Researchers Do?

This is a conceptual paper, not an intervention study. The authors didn’t collect participant data, run a treatment, or report outcomes. Instead, they build an argument for using intersectional qualitative inquiry alongside typical ABA methods, especially in intervention research.

They define intersectional qualitative research and explain why it adds useful information about learning history and lived experience. They describe what “thinking intersectionally” requires: noticing how your own background shapes what you see, and making room for different experiences within the same group.

They also walk through how intersectionality applies across the research process—planning the study, choosing questions, selecting participants, collecting data through interviews or focus groups, analyzing findings, and sharing results with real end users.

A key limitation: most behavior analysts aren’t trained in qualitative research. Doing it well requires mentorship and genuine skill-building. The authors warn against treating qualitative methods as a quick add-on. The approach includes values and power-sharing, not just a tool.

How to Use This in Day-to-Day Clinical Practice

Use this paper as a reminder that “learning history” extends far beyond what you see in session or read in a record review. Many powerful learning events happen elsewhere: schools, medical settings, public spaces, past therapies, immigration systems, policing, and family stress tied to money or housing.

When you build an assessment and plan, add structured time to learn about these contexts from the client and family in their own words. The goal isn’t to hunt for trauma details—it’s to understand what situations have taught the person that adults are unsafe, that saying “no” is punished, or that certain places are unpredictable.

Add Qualitative Routines to Intake

Even if you’re not doing formal research, include a short interview at intake and reassessment. Ask questions like:

• What goals feel helpful right now, and what feels wrong or stressful?
• What has gone badly in past services, and what felt respectful?
• What parts of your culture, family life, or identity should we understand so we don’t make unsafe assumptions?

Reflect those answers directly in your target selection and teaching plan so families can see you listened. If the client uses AAC or limited speech, plan how you’ll offer choice and gather assent in ways that work for them—not only through caregiver report.

Rethink Your Goals

When writing goals, check whether you’re aiming for “looks typical” instead of “works better for the learner.” If a goal mainly makes the learner easier to manage, pause and redesign it.

This paper supports shifting toward goals tied to quality of life, access, communication, comfort, and meaningful participation. It also supports caution with any procedure that increases compliance but reduces autonomy. If you teach following directions, pair it with teaching refusal skills, requesting breaks, and safe ways to disagree.

Make Social Validity Ongoing

Treat social validity as more than end-of-program ratings. Do ongoing, open-ended check-ins that allow people to say hard things without penalty.

A caregiver might rate a program as “fine” but still feel judged, confused, or pressured. A teen client may say they hate a goal but comply anyway because adults control access to preferred items. Build in private ways to give feedback, and be clear that feedback won’t remove services or rewards.

If you supervise staff, train them to respond calmly to criticism and to change plans based on it.

Address Power Differences

Pay attention to power imbalances in everyday interactions. You have credential power, clinic power, and often language power. If the family has experienced systems treating them unfairly, they may agree in the moment but disengage later.

Use plain language, avoid heavy jargon, and explain options with real choice. Ask permission before trying new prompts or physical guidance, and make “no” an allowed response whenever possible. These steps align with the paper’s focus on dignity and on building trust so your information is more accurate and your plan more workable.

Get Support Before Adding Qualitative Methods

If you want to add interviews or focus groups as part of program evaluation, get support first. The authors are clear that qualitative methods take training, and weak qualitative work can misrepresent families.

If you can’t get mentorship, keep your qualitative steps small and transparent—like documented stakeholder interviews used to guide treatment decisions, not to claim broad conclusions. Don’t treat one person’s story as “what this culture believes.” Use it as “what this person says they need,” and let that guide individualized care.

Think Intersectionally About Barriers

Use an intersectional lens when thinking about barriers to carryover. If a parent can’t implement a plan, it may not be “low buy-in.” It may be shift work, fear of school retaliation, limited transportation, disability, trauma history, or language mismatch with training materials.

Problem-solve with the family instead of pushing harder. Offer adaptations: shorter steps, different settings, adjusted schedules, translated materials, or coaching that respects privacy and home routines.

Share Materials That Actually Fit

Finally, share results and teaching materials in ways that match the community. If you create a caregiver packet or training, ask caregivers to review it for clarity and fit. Don’t assume clinic-friendly materials are family-friendly.

Keep language simple, avoid technical terms unless you define them, and include examples that match the family’s real routines.

This paper doesn’t say qualitative methods replace single-case designs. But it does support using people’s lived experience to choose better goals, reduce harm, and make services more likely to be accepted and sustained.

Works Cited

D’Agostino, S. R., & Pinkelman, S. E. (2025). Beyond social validity: Embracing qualitative research in behavior analysis. Behavior Analysis in Practice. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-025-01104-6