Can an understanding of basic research facilitate the effectiveness of practitioners? Reflections and personal perspectives.

Sidman (2011) wrote a position paper. He asked a simple question. Should we judge ABA grad schools by the papers their teachers write? Or by the research skills their students show after they leave?

He picked the second option. He says the best badge of a good program is student output. Look for grads who publish, present, and pass the BCBA exam.

The paper finds no data. It is an opinion piece. Murray argues that faculty citation counts can mislead. A star professor does not always train star practitioners.

He claims the real proof is in the students. Programs that teach grads to read, run, and write research produce better practitioners.

Critchfield (2015) reaches the same shelf. That paper also doubts faculty research output as a quality sign. Together they form a small chorus: stop counting the teacher's papers, start counting the student's.

Lepper et al. (2023) moves the idea forward. They give a data tool. Their method links program traits to BCBA pass rates. It turns the 2011 opinion into something you can graph.

Sleiman et al. (2020) adds a ranking model. They weight eleven program features plus pass-rate data. This lets schools pick designs that graduate competent analysts. The 2011 claim now has a calculator.

If you hire BCBAs or advise students on grad school, shift your eyes from faculty fame to student products. Ask for lists of student theses, posters, and first-author articles. A program rich in student output is more likely to give you a practitioner who can read a graph, run a single-case design, and keep up with the literature. Monday morning, add one line to your job ads or practicum flyers: 'Applicants must submit a sample of student-authored research.'