The Effects of Standard and Enhanced Data Sheets and Brief Video Training on Implementation of Conditional Discrimination Training

LeBlanc and team asked the therapists to run a matching-to-sample lesson. Half got the usual blank data sheet. Half got an enhanced sheet that already listed the day’s targets and showed where to place pictures on the table.

Each therapist watched a 3-minute video, then taught a short session. The researchers scored how often the therapists rotated pictures so the child could not guess the right answer by position.

Therapists with the enhanced sheet placed pictures in new spots on a large share of trials. Therapists with the standard sheet did it only a large share of the time.

The enhanced sheet also cut setup time. Therapists did not need to stop and plan the next array; the sheet told them exactly what to do.

Davenport et al. (2019) showed that a quick BST package can push teachers to a large share accuracy on a reading game. LeBlanc adds a simpler fix: just change the data sheet. No rehearsal or feedback needed.

Manolov et al. (2022) give new graphs for single-case data; LeBlanc gives a new data sheet to collect that data. Both tools aim to make research cleaner without extra training.

Wolfe et al. (2023) offer software to judge if an effect repeats; LeBlanc shows how to run the session so the data are worth judging in the first place.

You can raise procedural fidelity tomorrow by printing a smarter sheet. Write the day’s targets down the left and add a tiny table that shows where each picture goes on every trial. Hand it to your RBT and watch counterbalancing jump from coin-flip to a large share without another training meeting.