A Comparison of Electronic and Pen‐And‐Paper Recording in ABA Sessions
Electronic data collection keeps ABA sessions running at the same speed as paper while giving staff cleaner records.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team swapped between iPad and paper data sheets during the same ABA sessions.
They counted how many learning trials kids with autism completed each minute.
Staff also tracked if any data points were missed or lost.
What they found
Trial speed stayed the same no matter which tool they used.
No data went missing with either method.
Workers told researchers they liked the iPad better, but it did not change results.
How this fits with other research
Sleeper et al. (2017) saw huge gains when their clinic moved to electronic graphs: every chart was up-to-date and the agency saved money.
That looks like a contradiction, but Sleeper measured graph currency and ROI, not trial speed. Lotfizadeh et al. (2025) show the earlier savings came without hurting session pace.
Anonymous (2023) added electronic notes to a hybrid ABA model and boosted goal success by about ten percent. The new study extends that work by proving the gadget itself does not slow teaching.
Why it matters
You can adopt electronic data tools without fear of losing teaching time. Kids still get the same number of learning opportunities each minute. Staff get cleaner graphs and fewer lost sheets, and the agency can see savings later. Try an iPad next session—session speed stays intact.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run one block with your usual paper sheet and the next block with an iPad—count trials per minute both ways to confirm speed holds.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
ABSTRACTWith the widespread use of electronic recording applications in healthcare, and recently in applied behavior analysis (ABA) therapy sessions that teach autistic learners, researchers have begun examining how the recording instruments influence the behavior of the clinicians who use them. Although prior research has suggested that electronic recording consumes more of the behavior technician's time than pen‐and‐paper recording, it is unclear how this impacts the overall flow of ABA sessions. The present study examined (a) the rate of teaching trials that behavior technicians presented and (b) the percentage of learning trials that the behavior technicians inputted data for as a function of two electronic recording instruments and pen‐and‐paper recording. The findings suggested that the recording instrument did not impact either of these measures. However, the participants ranked electronic recording more favorably than pen‐and‐paper recording. Given the present results and prior research, electronic recording does not seem to pose practical or clinical disadvantages over pen‐and‐paper recording.
Behavioral Interventions, 2025 · doi:10.1002/bin.70013