A Review of Training Strategies to Teach Individuals Implementation of Behavioral Interventions

Shapiro et al. (2017) read 24 staff-training studies and wrote a story about them. They looked for the parts that showed up again and again, like instructions, modeling, rehearsal, and feedback.

The review did not run new numbers. It just pulled the best tips from each paper.

Every paper used the same four-step recipe: tell, show, practice, and correct. Yet almost none checked if staff liked the training or kept using it months later.

The authors say we need more work on social validity and long-term use.

Shire et al. (2014) did a stricter review of train-the-trainer studies and also saw weak follow-up data. Their paper came first, so Shapiro et al. (2017) adds new angles like workshops and e-learning.

Reid et al. (2019) asked 1,000 staff what they hate and love in workshops. Staff want clear, job-relevant demos and lots of practice. This matches the target paper’s call for social validity.

Blackman et al. (2022) tested a tiny fix—prompt, feedback, and a $5 gift card—and got peer trainers to keep teaching new hires. It shows one way to solve the maintenance gap the target review flagged.

Hartzler et al. (2016) kept a token system alive for two years by letting staff co-plan and pick two site champions. Their pragmatic tips echo the target’s plea for long-term support.

You now have a checklist: instructions, model, rehearsal, feedback. Before your next inservice, add one social-validity probe—ask staff to rate usefulness and intent to use. Then borrow Blackman’s prompt plus tiny incentive to keep the skills alive. These small moves turn a one-day workshop into lasting practice.