Association for Behavior Analysis International

Procedural fidelity is the degree to which interventions are implemented as prescribed. Behavior analysts may use a variety of tools to train behavior change agents to implement procedures with high fidelity. This symposium includes four studies that evaluated staff training approaches to improve procedural fidelity. Aguilar et al. will present research evaluating the effects of training novice staff to collect procedural-fidelity data on their implementation of differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO) procedures. Lionello-Denolf et al. will present the effects of teaching staff to use Train to Code software to collect fidelity data on their fidelity with discrete trial instruction (DTI). Lai et al. will present the effects of in-vivo self-monitoring on procedural fidelity for staff implementing DTI. Finally, Bartle et al. will present a comparison of video modeling with exemplars or exemplars and nonexemplars to train staff to implement DTI and preference assessments. Presentations will be followed by a discussion of implications for research and practice.

supervising BCBAs and behavior-analytic researchers

Entry-level personnel (e.g., behavior therapists) frequently deliver discrete trial (DT) programs to students with autism. Because outcomes are related to intervention quality, staff must deliver these programs correctly. The Train to Code (TTC) software teaches observation skills using behavior-analytic adaptive instruction methods. To accomplish this, TTC presents a series of video clips depicting a teacher delivering trials of receptive labeling, social questions, and motor imitation programs. In many clips, the teacher makes an error. By entering a code, the trainee indicates if the teacher correctly followed the steps or what error was made. TTC increases/decreases the degree of prompting given to the trainee based on coding accuracy. The efficacy of using TTC to train staff to deliver DT programs was tested in a pre/posttest and multiple baseline design. Pre-/posttests were role plays in which participants (undergraduates studying applied behavior analysis or behavior therapists) acted as teachers delivering DT programs to a scripted research assistant. Participants completed 1–3 pretests, TTC training, and 1–2 posttests. IOA and procedural integrity on role plays were above 90%. Results indicated substantial improvement in DT delivery at posttest. TTC may be an effective method for training delivery of DT programs in applied settings.

Beneficial consumer outcomes are most likely when behavior-analytic interventions are implemented with high procedural fidelity (i.e., degree to which the procedure is implemented as intended). Video self-monitoring, which involves teaching staff members to monitor their own behavior when watching recordings of themselves, can be used to improve and maintain high procedural fidelity, but video self-monitoring requires additional staff time and resources. In-vivo self-monitoring involves monitoring behavior during or immediately following implementing a behavior-analytic intervention, which could be a cost-effective option, but in-vivo self-monitoring needs additional research. The focus of the current study was to assess the effects of in-vivo self-monitoring with checklists on the procedural fidelity of three behavior technicians implementing discrete trial instruction with children with autism. We used a nonconcurrent multiple baseline across participants design, and our data suggested that in-vivo self-monitoring was effective for two of the three participants. Procedural fidelity for the third participant did not increase with in-vivo or video self-monitoring. Results of this evaluation were used to inform the supervisors about the efficacy of self-monitoring for each staff member, and implications of using self-monitoring in practice will be discussed.