Evaluating Components of Behavior-Analytic Training Programs

Abstract

This study investigates the consistency of behavior-analytic training with the Behavior Analysis Certification Board’s task list. A survey about the content of behavior-analytic training programs was sent to Behavior Analyst Certification Board (BACB)-approved training program directors. There were many program directors that felt particular areas do not have sufficient coverage (e.g., Behavioral Pharmacology, Biological Bases of Behavior, Organizational Behavior Management), and several program directors reported that their course sequence does not adequately prepare students in basic research. Results suggest that the evaluation of behavior-analytic training content may be warranted.

Issues related to training standards are central to any field. Identifying the content that must be mastered and the minimal standards of competency is important to ensure quality and consistency within professions. For behavior analysts, training standards are set by the primary accrediting body, the Behavior Analyst Certification Board (BACB). This content is then transmitted to new behavior analysts via BACB-approved course sequences and other training experiences. The present study evaluated perceptions of the suitability of training content for behavior analysts by coordinators of BACB-approved course sequences.

The BACB has developed a list of tasks necessary for proficiency in applied behavior analysis, or ABA (BACB Task List, 2012) that serves as the basis for their credentialing exam. These tasks have been derived from the original seven dimensions of ABA (cf. Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968, 1987), and the task list is revised regularly. The current version of the task list is separated into three sections: Basic Behavior-Analytic Skills, Client Centered Responsibilities, and Foundational Knowledge. Basic Behavior-Analytic Skills are a set of frequently used procedures. Client Centered Responsibilities are tasks that should be applied to all clients (e.g., stating intervention goals, ethical considerations). The Foundational Knowledge section includes concepts that should be understood before applying these practices to clients (BACB Task List, 2012). This task list directly informs the training of applied behavior analysts.

Beyond following the content dictated by the BACB, there may be other dimensions of training that influence the quality of behavior-analytic training programs and the success of their graduates. Dixon, Reed, Smith, Belisle and Jackson, (2015) published a listing of programs with high levels of research productivity. These authors evaluated the research productivity (in the form of publications in six behavior-analytic journals) of faculty members from BACB-approved and ABAI-accredited training programs. They found a high degree of variability in amount of research publications between training programs, with 41 % of the selected faculty having not published a single article in any of the target journals. Dixon and colleagues proposed that it is beneficial to have higher research productivity in order to train successful practitioners. Shortly after this paper appeared, Behavior Analysis in Practice published a series of responses including Critchfield’s, (2015) discussion on the importance of research in graduate training. As Dixon et al., (2015) noted, conducting research provides a source for novel ideas or procedures that may need evaluation in different contexts. Reeve, (2015) suggested that the growing need for practitioners may be related to the shifted focus of training programs. It is possible that the main focus of many programs is to train students to be practitioners who can apply behavior-analytic methodologies rather than to conduct research.

To follow up on the work of Dixon et al., (2015), we explored the course content in BACB-approved course sequences using an electronic survey. An email with a link to this survey was sent via the BACB listserv for approved course sequences, which included approximately 200 BCBA training program coordinators. These individuals were selected because of their assumed familiarity with the content of the training program and their administrative capacity to shape the experience of their students. While this self-report measure of single faculty members within a program may not perfectly describe the status of any program, the individuals who were surveyed are in leadership roles within the behavior-analytic training structure.

Method

Participants

Approximately 200 behavior analysis course sequence coordinators were surveyed via the Behavior Analysis Certification Board listserv. Forty-nine program directors completed the survey (i.e., a response rate of approximately 25 %).

Survey

Participants were asked to provide information about their training program. This included what degrees are offered, the format in which classes are taken, and if students can meet the BACB’s experience requirement via their program. Participants were then asked to identify each course topic for which they have a course in their sequence. In conjunction with those specified courses, they were asked to provide how many hours of coverage is devoted to each content area and whether they feel that that allotted time is sufficient enough. Program directors were asked to identify which journals students read from, as well as if they have read and are familiar with Baer et al.’s, (1968, 1987) seminal papers. Lastly, participants indicated whether, upon completion of their training program, their students were adequately prepared in teaching applied behavior analysis, basic research, applied research, and behavior theory and philosophy.

Procedure

An email with a link to this survey was sent via the BACB listserv for approved course sequences. Upon completion of the survey, participants were given the opportunity to enter into a random drawing for one of four $25 Amazon.com gift cards.

Results and Discussion

Forty-nine program directors completed the survey (i.e., a response rate of approximately 25 %, which is fairly high for an electronic survey; cf. Coughlin, Aliaga, Barth, Eber, Maillard, Mahan, & Williams, 2011). Fifteen (30 %) responses were from training programs resulting in the BCAB-D credential. Forty-two programs (86 %) had coursework approved for the BCBA credential, and 24 (50 %) had training programs leading to the BCaBA credential. Upon completion, participants were given the opportunity to enter into a random drawing for one of four $25 Amazon.com gift cards.

Based on the 49 responses, we identified the top five most common courses across programs. Forty-eight (98 %) programs have a class that primarily deals with Applied Behavior Analysis, 40 (82 %) have a class on special education, and 37 (76 %) focus on reinforcement. Thirty-one (63 %) programs have classes focusing on the experimental analysis of behavior and biological bases of behavior. A listing of reported content hours and ratings of adequacy of content coverage is presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Number of hours devoted to content areas and frequency of ratings

		Content area	Hours		Ratings
			Mean	St. dev.	Too little	Sufficient	Too much
ABA	Applied domains	Applied behavior analysis	108.93	83.76	2	44	2
		Developmental disabilities	46.32	23.15	11	32	4
		Instructional design	21.35	17.84	22	20	2
		Organizational behavior management	16.06	17.75	33	11	1
		Special education	15.41	11.77	15	24	4
	Techniques	Functional analysis	28.97	19.24	10	36	1
		Generalization techniques	10.36	8.27	10	34	2
FOUNDATIONS	Basic	Experimental analysis of behavior	26.21	22.6	20	27	1
		Biological bases of behavior	14.93	17.32	27	18	0
		Philosophy of behaviorism	13.13	13.71	16	27	3
		History of behavior analysis	7.54	9.36	17	28	1
		Behavioral pharmacology	5.92	12.7	34	11	0
	Principles	Stimulus control	37.44	74.42	6	39	1
		Reinforcement	25.54	33.94	1	44	1
		Verbal Behavior	19.92	16.46	16	27	3
		Punishment	11.92	16.98	8	35	1
	Methods	Experimental research design	31.82	13.15	9	38	1
		Visual analysis of data	21.52	19.63	5	41	0
	Professional	Professional development	17.08	18.87	17	27	0
	Development	Communicating with other professionals	14.31	13.07	14	30	1

To evaluate the relative satisfaction of the program directors with the coverage of each domain, a satisfaction index was calculated. We multiplied the number of ratings of too little coverage by −1 and the too much coverage by 1. The sufficient coverage ratings were counted as 0. We summed these products and multiplied by 100 to produce an index of the satisfaction for each area. Figure 1 depicts the overall satisfaction index values for elements of applied behavior analysis (top panel) and foundations of behavior analysis (bottom panel). In this figure, categories further to the right (i.e., closer to 0) indicate less dissatisfaction. Note that, across both panels, only two categories (ABA and reinforcement) had values close to 0. While “sufficient” was the most common response overall, there were several content areas where a large proportion of our sample indicated that there was not sufficient coverage. Interestingly, for the domains in which participants indicated that there was too much coverage, there were more participants who indicated insufficient coverage, pulling the rating values below 0.

Fig. 1.

Satisfaction index ratings of domains of behavior analysis. Values further from 0 represent lower satisfaction

To further explore the satisfaction with content allocation, we examined if there were differences of satisfaction index scores between programs leading to the BCBA-D credential and programs that did not. Figure 2 depicts the satisfaction index scores for the eight categories that differed by more than 10 points. Generally, the doctoral training program coordinators were less satisfied with the content coverage than the non-doctoral program coordinators. This discrepancy could be a function of the different training goals of each type of program, with doctoral training preparing students for different responsibilities and roles than master’s or bachelor’s programs. Furthermore, the duration of the training program (i.e., how long training programs have with students) and competing demands (e.g., research productivity) may account for these differences.

Fig. 2.

Differences in satisfaction index across domains of behavior analysis as a function of training level

As the goal of behavior-analytic training programs is to produce competent professionals, we were also interested in the reported outcomes of training. A final section of survey items asked about the extent to which their course sequence allows their graduates to be successful in a variety of domains: practicing ABA, teaching behavior analysis, basic research, applied research, and behavior theory and philosophy. Whereas 93 % of our respondents indicated that their course sequence adequately prepares students to practice ABA, and 36 (73 %) indicated that their students would be competent in applied research, the numbers for the other domains were less promising. For example, 27 (55 %) coordinators indicated that their students would be adequately prepared for success working in behavior theory and philosophy. Only 18 respondents (37 %) indicated that their coursework prepares their students for basic research. Given the relation between behaviorism, basic research, and applied work, it is potentially concerning that so many program directors indicated that their program was adequate in these domains. The use of translational research in training (e.g., Mace & Critchfield, 2010) may be one way to remedy this situation.

With the majority of program directors identifying that there is too little coverage of basic science topics (e.g., behavioral pharmacology, biological bases of behavior; see Fig. 1), a review of the BACB task list may be justified. Content such as EAB, history, and philosophy of behaviorism is foundational for ABA, and practitioners should have sufficient knowledge in these areas. When practitioners learn procedures isolated from their conceptual and empirical roots, the discipline of ABA may become weaker because it is not conceptually systematic (cf. Baer et al., 1987).

Given the novelty of our survey and the ∼25 % response rate, caution should be used in evaluating the generality of these findings, and future research is warranted. It is possible that there is a systematic difference between the program directors who responded and those who did not. Furthermore, the self-report methodology wherein a single faculty member’s opinion is solicited is potentially limiting. Future research should identify additional mechanisms by which program-level training issues can be assessed (e.g., by analyzing syllabi). Still, given the relatively early stages of research on training programs in behavior analysis, our data may continue the conversation.

An analysis of behavior-analytic training programs is essential because as a discipline, we must be sure that the newest members of our field are aware of our empirical and conceptual foundations. Despite Baer et al.’s, (1987) suggestion that the dimensions of ABA should be reviewed and modified after 20 years, we were unable to find such an analysis in the extant literature. While this evaluation is well beyond the scope of the present paper, such a re-analysis may be warranted. Perhaps, our field is shifting away from its historical EAB traditions and more towards a set of tools to be applied by technicians. Perhaps, we are less concerned with the basic-science roots or philosophical underpinnings than we once were; this is an empirical question to be answered by future research. Such shifts are neither inherently good nor bad, but should be accounted for in our definitions of the discipline and our training practices.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.