Assessment and training of clinical interviewing skills: analogue analysis and field replication.

The team trained 12 university students to run clinical interviews. First, each learner read a 30-page manual. Next, they sat through two lectures and took quizzes. Then they practiced with a partner while the coach gave live feedback.

The study ran a multiple-baseline across students. Skills were scored from video of mock interviews and later from real clinic intakes. Follow-up probes were taken four months later.

Every student jumped from below a large share to above a large share correct steps after the first practice round. Scores stayed high in real client interviews. Four months later, no one needed retraining.

Supervisors and clients rated the interviews as helpful and respectful.

Varley et al. (1980) did almost the same thing two years earlier, but with adults with intellectual disability learning job interviews. Both studies used instruction, modeling, role-play, and feedback. The 1980 paper shows the package works across very different learners.

Slane et al. (2021) later pooled 20 similar staff-training studies. Their review says BST almost always hits high fidelity, yet half of the studies were weak on quality. The 1982 paper already used solid single-case design, so it still holds up.

Neely et al. (2022) moved BST online. They trained BCBAs to coach parents through telehealth and still reached a large share fidelity. Together, these papers trace a line: the same four-step method works face-to-face, with new populations, and now through a screen.

You do not need a long workshop to teach a new clinical skill. Give staff a brief manual, a short lecture, and lots of rehearsed practice with feedback. Check mastery on video, then drop the prompts. The skill will stick for months, even with real clients.