Evaluating the Quality of Behavior Analytic Practitioner Training Programs.

Doughty et al. (2015) wrote a narrative review about BCBA training programs.

They looked at what courses, supervision, and tests meet BACB rules.

The paper focuses on autism work, not other populations.

The review lists gaps between what is taught and what is needed.

It says programs must add autism-specific content beyond basic task lists.

No new data are given; the paper is a discussion piece.

Einfeld et al. (1995) asked 265 BCBAs what tasks belong in training. Their 108-item list became the backbone of later BACB standards.

Shire et al. (2014) reviewed 12 train-the-trainer studies. They found community ABA can work, but most studies are weak.

Schreck et al. (2016) surveyed BCBAs one year later. Many still use non-evidence treatments, showing the 2015 standards did not fix practice.

Plattner et al. (2023) asked 277 BCBAs about soft skills. Most feel untrained in building rapport, a gap the 2015 review never mentioned.

Whiteside et al. (2022) found low knowledge of Naturalistic Developmental Behavioral Interventions among 901 professionals. This extends the 2015 concern that autism content is thin.

Friedman et al. (2024) tested a 4-month soft-skill package with 24 ABA staff. Scores for self-care and teamwork rose, giving the first data on fixing the gaps the 2015 paper only described.

Use the 2015 checklist to audit your new-hire orientation. Add autism modules, NDBI demos, soft-skill role-plays, and cultural items that later surveys show are missing. Run a mini pre-post like Friedman et al. (2024) to prove your extra training works.