A detailed examination of reporting procedural fidelity in the <i>Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis</i>
JABA authors talk about fidelity more but still hide the details—use the new checklist to show your work.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Bergmann et al. (2023) read every experiment published in JABA from 2007 through 2021. They scored how often authors said they watched staff, how they counted correct steps, and whether they told readers why fidelity was or was not tracked.
What they found
Papers now say "we checked fidelity" more than before. Few give the actual checklist or explain why they skipped fidelity. Most still leave out how they calculated the score.
How this fits with other research
Essig et al. (2023) looked at the same journal and saw the same gap: only half of recent studies show any fidelity data.
Jones et al. (2020) found the same blind spot for race, age, and income. Together the three audits show JABA authors keep leaving out basic facts.
Fahmie et al. (2023) give a different checklist for ecological validity. Bergmann’s team ends with a similar fix: a ready-to-copy fidelity table.
Why it matters
If you write up a study, use the Bergmann checklist. Add your fidelity form, the formula, and the raw percent. If you skip fidelity, say why. Readers, reviewers, and future RBTs need these lines to trust and repeat your work.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Open your last write-up and add one sentence that states your fidelity score and how you calculated it.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Few reviews on procedural fidelity-the degree to which procedures are implemented as designed-provide details to gauge the quality of fidelity reporting in behavior-analytic research. This review focused on experiments in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (2006-2021) with "integrity" or "fidelity" in the abstract or body. When fidelity data were collected, the coders characterized measurement details (e.g., description of calculation, report of single or multiple values, frequency of fidelity checks, checklist use). The researchers found increasing trends in describing the calculation(s), reporting multiple values, and stating the frequency of measurement. Few studies described using a checklist. Most studies reported fidelity as a percentage, with high obtained values (M = 97%). When not collecting fidelity data was stated as a limitation, authors were unlikely to provide a rationale for the omission. We discuss recommendations for reporting procedural fidelity to increase the quality of and transparency in behavior-analytic research.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2023 · doi:10.1002/jaba.1015