Using general‐case procedures outside of autism intervention: A systematic review

Hickey et al. (2024) hunted for every paper that used general-case teaching with people who do NOT have autism. They screened 3,000 records and kept 42 studies.

The team checked two things: did authors write the steps so clearly that you could copy them, and did anyone test if the skill actually transferred to new places, people, or materials.

Most papers left out the recipe. Only one in three gave enough detail for you to run the same program.

Even worse, only one in four ever checked if the learner could still do the skill with untrained items or in new settings. The rest just stopped after the last training trial.

Gianoumis et al. (2012) saw the same hole in staff-training studies. They found 46 of 54 papers used generalization tactics, but most never measured if the staff kept the skills on the job.

Neely et al. (2018) reviewed functional-communication training and got the same story: 37 studies, almost no generalization probes. The problem is not the method; it is the follow-through.

Rasing et al. (1992) warned us 30 years ago. Their narrative review said social-skills research for kids with emotional disorders barely checked generalization. Hickey’s team shows nothing has changed.

If you use general-case training, treat the write-up like a BCBA task list item. List every stimulus set, response form, and decision rule. Then schedule at least one probe in a fresh setting or with untrained materials. Your future self—and every RBT who inherits the plan—will know the skill actually stuck.