Evaluating Components of Behavior-Analytic Training Programs

Blydenburg et al. (2016) asked BACB-approved program directors what their courses actually cover.

They sent a survey to every director they could find. The survey listed each task-list area and asked, "Do you teach this? Do you teach it enough?"

Directors also rated how well their own students can read, design, and run basic research.

The directors themselves said three areas get shortchanged: Behavioral Pharmacology, Biological Bases, and Organizational Behavior Management.

They also admitted students leave with weak skills in reading and running basic experiments.

In short, the people running the programs say the programs are incomplete.

Dubuque et al. (2018) picked up the baton. They turned the gaps into a blueprint that shows universities how to build supervision systems that catch the missing pieces.

Malott (2018) offered a science-first fix. He proposed a whole model that puts JABA and JEAB readings front and center to plug the research hole the survey found.

Blackman et al. (2022) went further. They ran an experiment and showed that simply watching plus note-taking rarely trains staff; you still need direct feedback. This backs the survey’s call for stronger, evidence-based teaching methods.

Geiger et al. (2018) supplied hard numbers. Their RCT found computer-based BST can nearly match live BST for teaching DTT. That gives programs a low-cost way to add the rigorous training the survey says is missing.

If the directors say the classes are thin, your new hires likely feel it. Check your supervisees’ comfort with OBM, biological bases, and research design. If they look shaky, plug the holes with the ready-made tools from Dubuque et al. and Geiger et al. A stronger entry-level workforce starts with you patching these known gaps.