Comparison of Traditional and Embedded DTT on Problem Behavior and Responding to Instructional Targets

Haq et al. (2019) compared two ways to run discrete-trial training. One child with autism got tabletop DTT first, then embedded DTT later.

In tabletop DTT the child sat at a table. In embedded DTT the same targets were slipped into play and daily routines. The team tracked correct answers and any problem behavior.

Skill accuracy stayed the same in both formats. The child met more targets per minute during embedded DTT. Problem behavior dropped to zero once the trials moved off the table.

Lugo et al. (2019) also wiped out negative vocalizations in DTT, but they used presession pairing instead of changing the setting. Both studies show you can cut problem behavior without hurting learning.

Knopp et al. (2023) later showed DTT works as well on Zoom as in person. Together these papers stretch the DTT playbook: change the room, change the prep, or change the screen—kids still learn.

Giunta‐Fede et al. (2016) tweaked data sheets, not the table, and got faster tact mastery. Haq’s team tweaks the table, not the data sheet, and gets zero problem behavior. The field is zeroing in on what to change and what to leave alone.

If a learner bolts, cries, or hits during tabletop trials, try embedding the same targets in play or snack time. You keep accuracy, gain more teaching moments, and stop problem behavior before it starts. One switch of setting can do the work of a full behavior plan.