Assessment & Research

A descriptive evaluation of long-term treatment integrity.

Arkoosh et al. (2007) · Behavior modification 2007
★ The Verdict

High accuracy is critical for punishment plans, but extinction can handle small mistakes if reinforcement stays strong.

✓ Read this if BCBAs writing behavior-reduction plans in clinics, schools, or homes.
✗ Skip if Researchers only studying skill acquisition without problem behavior.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

The team looked back at 15 years of behavior plans. They checked how closely staff followed each step.

They wanted to know if small mistakes still worked over time. They studied both reward and punishment plans.

02

What they found

High accuracy mattered most for punishment or timeout plans. When staff missed steps, bad behavior came back.

Extinction plans were different. Staff could miss some steps if they gave big rewards every time. The bad behavior still dropped.

03

How this fits with other research

Castañe et al. (1993) showed that most 1980s studies never checked accuracy. Arkoosh et al. (2007) proves why that was a problem.

Falakfarsa et al. (2022) found that even in 2019, half of new studies skip accuracy checks. The field still repeats the 1980s mistake.

Aherne et al. (2019) tested one fix. They showed staff can keep high accuracy for weeks if they use a simple self-check sheet. This gives us a tool to reach the high standards Kathryn et al. demand.

04

Why it matters

Check your behavior plans today. If you use timeout or response cost, measure every step. If you use extinction, still check, but focus more on heavy reinforcement. Add a 30-second self-check sheet for staff to keep accuracy high after training.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Pick your toughest behavior plan. Write a 5-item self-check sheet. Have staff rate themselves after each session.

02At a glance

Intervention
not applicable
Design
other
Finding
positive

03Original abstract

The validity of selecting treatment contingencies on the basis of the results obtained through functional analysis is well documented. However, a number of second-generation questions have emerged: For example, what are the parameters required to achieve desired treatment outcomes? More specifically, what is the degree of treatment integrity needed for the successful reduction of problem behavior? This study had two purposes: to describe the relationship between treatment integrity levels and treatment effectiveness and to highlight the importance of reporting the treatment integrity in outcome-based research. The results indicate that a high level of treatment integrity is required for treatment success. Furthermore, the authors found that very low levels of integrity may be required for behavioral reduction procedures (i.e., extinction) if high levels of reinforcement are provided.

Behavior modification, 2007 · doi:10.1177/0145445507302254