A brief review of technology‐based antecedent training procedures

Erath et al. (2020) looked at every paper they could find on tech-based antecedent staff training.

They read studies where staff watched videos, clicked through e-learning, or used apps before working with clients.

The goal was to see how well these tools teach staff what to do before they ever meet a learner.

The authors say the tech tools work, but the studies are messy.

Different teams use different names for the same thing, skip steps, or leave out key details.

Because of that, we cannot tell which tech format is best or why it helps.

Belisle et al. (2021) show one fix: they built remote DTT lessons on Zoom and shared the exact buttons staff click.

Konstantinidou et al. (2023) looked at staff PBS training plus OBM and found staff changed, yet almost no study checked if clients got better.

That sounds like a clash, but it is not. Erath wants clearer methods; Konstantinidou shows what happens when we skip client data.

Together they say: use tech to train, then measure real client gains the same way every time.

You can start using video modules or interactive slides to teach new RBTs tonight.

Just add one simple sheet: list the client skill you want to see after training and track it.

This small step answers both Erath’s call for cleaner data and Konstantinidou’s warning that staff change is not enough.