Rational skepticism: A scientific review of Witts' (2018) criticisms of the PEAK relational training system

Belisle and colleagues read every point Witts raised against PEAK studies. They checked the math, the stats, and the logic. Then they wrote a line-by-line reply.

The paper is a narrative review, not new data. It is a defense brief for the PEAK Relational Training System.

Of the 30 attacks, most were judged wrong or over-blown. The authors say the flaws do not kill the PEAK tool kit.

In plain words: keep using PEAK; the critique does not sink it.

Yaw et al. (2014) showed that quick feedback after in-service training doubles staff data accuracy. Belisle et al. lean on the same kind of single-case, feedback-rich design that Jared proved works. The two papers echo each other: tight feedback loops are a feature, not a flaw.

Ruiz (1998) complained that college behavior-analysis courses lack solid outcome data. Belisle et al. face a mirror worry—PEAK studies being told their evidence is weak. Both papers push the field to measure better, not throw tools away.

Moss et al. (2009) meta-analysis found that coaching plus in-service beats lectures alone. If future PEAK trainer studies fall inside that meta, they should use the same mix: brief lecture, then on-the-job coaching with praise and correction. Belisle’s defense opens the door for those stronger designs.

If you run PEAK lessons, you can breathe easier—the main attacks on its research base have been answered. Keep collecting data, but also add the ingredients that work: live coaching and brief feedback. You will guard both client progress and your own evidence quality.