A Review of the Pyramidal Training Approach for Practitioners Working With Individuals With Disabilities.
Pyramidal training fixes staff skills fast, but client gains lag—always pair it with client data checks.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Andzik et al. (2017) looked at 14 papers that used pyramidal training.
One expert trains a small group. That group trains a bigger group.
They asked: Does this cascade help staff and clients with disabilities?
What they found
Every Tier-1 trainer learned the skill.
Most Tier-2 staff also improved.
Only about half of clients showed clear gains.
How this fits with other research
Konstantinidou et al. (2023) saw the same gap. Staff training changed staff, but client gains were thin.
Westemeier et al. (2020) extended the idea. They gave managers a short workshop. Frontline teachers then got better.
Wilson et al. (2023) used a two-module BST course. Knowledge rose, yet two-thirds of staff dropped out. The pattern repeats: staff learn, clients benefit less.
Why it matters
Pyramidal training is a cheap way to spread skills. Use it to train staff fast. Do not stop there. Track each client every week. If progress stalls, add new teaching steps or call in extra help.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →After your next staff BST session, add a 5-minute client probe—if the kid’s target behavior doesn’t budge in two weeks, tweak the plan.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Pyramidal training has been used for many years to expedite training for those who work with individuals with disabilities and utilizes an expert who provides training to a practitioner who then trains another practitioner to implement practices with clients. Fourteen articles were analyzed to investigate the viability of this training approach for practitioners of all types who support individuals with disabilities. Research does support the effectiveness of pyramidal training within the parameters with which it has been evaluated in this review. All Tier 1 participants made improvement; 83% of Tier 2 participants and 43% of individuals with disabilities showed improvement. Future researchers are encouraged to analyze not only the fidelity of the implementation of these practices but also the changes among the individuals with disabilities. To that end, progress monitoring is necessary to determine whether the implementation was the cause for the meaningful gains for the population being served.
Behavior modification, 2017 · doi:10.1177/0145445517692952