Methodology
Status: v0.1. The rubric below is how we plan to score. Numeric scores have not been published yet; the current top picks are first-pass editorial opinion. The weights have not yet been reviewed by a BCBA or compliance reviewer.
Scoring rubric (100 points)
| Criterion | Weight | How scored (0-5, scaled) |
|---|---|---|
| HIPAA / BAA availability | 25 | 5 = BAA publicly stated for the product and covering AI features; 3 = 'HIPAA-compliant' claim only, BAA on request; 0 = not found or explicit no-BAA tier. Tools scoring 0-1 are capped 'Not recommended for PHI'. |
| ABA-specific features | 25 | CPT 97151-97158 awareness, payer-specific checks, goal/data linkage, BACB supervision, authorization tracking. |
| Integrations with ABA practice management software | 15 | Native in an ABA PM suite = 5; documented integrations/exports = 3-4; none stated = 0-1. |
| Price and transparency | 10 | Published pricing, fit for small clinics, no hidden implementation fees. |
| User feedback | 15 | Capterra/G2 etc. rating, count and recency; vendor self-reported stats discounted; low review counts flagged. |
| Update recency | 10 | Dated release notes or news within 90 days = 5; 6-12 months = 2; none = 0. |
Rules
- Every score will cite a source URL and retrieval date.
- 'Not found' scores 0 and is shown as 'not listed'; we never guess.
- Vendor-authored comparison pages (Theralytics, Cadence, Wilma, Bevado) are not used as feedback evidence.
- Rankings are per use case (weights may shift, e.g. notes weigh ABA-specific features higher).
- Information is gathered from vendor sites and help centers; some vendor pages blocked automated fetch (e.g. CentralReach, Rethink pricing), so those fields are 'not listed'.
- Planned: human (ideally BCBA) review before publishing score changes or HIPAA/BAA claim changes; vendor right-of-reply.