A content analysis of written behavior management programs.

R et al. built a 24-item checklist that scores what a written behavior plan actually says. They tested it on plans already filed in a large state facility. Two trained raters scored the same plans to see if the checklist gave the same result each time.

The checklist looks for five big parts: clear behavior definition, measurable goal, step-by-step procedures, data sheet, and staff training notes. Each item is pass or fail, so you get a quick picture of plan quality.

The checklist was reliable: different raters agreed on almost every item. Most plans passed on defining the problem behavior, but many failed on writing the goal in numbers, listing the data sheet, or saying how staff would be trained.

The authors did not track client outcomes, so the study cannot tell us which plans actually worked. It only tells us which parts are usually missing from the paperwork.

Oliver et al. (2002) did the same kind of psychometric tune-up ten years later on the Developmental Behavior Checklist. Both papers show that a short, clear list can give stable scores if you train raters the same way.

Smith et al. (1994) also built a new checklist, but they went further and showed their Adolescent Behavior Checklist could spot real psychiatric disorders. R et al. stopped at paperwork quality, so B et al. extends the idea into clinical utility.

Efstratopoulou et al. (2012) validated the Motor Behavior Checklist by showing it lined up with teacher and parent ratings. Their convergent-validity step is exactly what R et al. would need next to prove that higher checklist scores link to better client gains.

You can use the 24-item list right now to audit any written plan in your caseload. It takes five minutes and shows staff exactly what to add before the plan goes live. Use it during supervision, not at the end of the year, and you will catch missing data sheets and vague goals before they cost you progress.