Practitioner Development

Training teachers in generalized writing of behavior modification programs for multihandicapped deaf children.

Hundert (1982) · Journal of applied behavior analysis 1982
★ The Verdict

Teach staff to write and run behavior programs, not just to measure behavior, and back it up with on-the-job feedback.

✓ Read this if BCBAs training teachers or aides in schools or clinics.
✗ Skip if Practitioners looking for computer-based training comparisons only.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Moore (1982) worked with teachers of multihandicapped deaf children. The team first taught the teachers to measure behavior. Then they taught the same teachers to write full behavior-mod programs.

The study used a multiple-baseline design across teachers. Researchers watched if the teachers used the programs and if pupil behavior improved.

02

What they found

Only the second step mattered. After learning to write programs, teachers started using them and pupil behaviors got better. The earlier measurement training alone did nothing.

The new skills spread to different pupils and different behaviors without extra teaching.

03

How this fits with other research

Yaw et al. (2014) and Romani et al. (2023) echo the same point: training plus feedback beats training alone. Jared added brief feedback to in-service and data accuracy doubled. Romani added feedback to didactic lessons and progress-note quality jumped for three of four staff.

Blackman et al. (2022) seems to disagree at first. Their trainees only improved when feedback was added, showing observation alone is weak. This lines up with Moore (1982): measurement-only was useless until programming training arrived.

Moss et al. (2009) meta-analysis wraps it all together. Across 55 studies, the winning package is in-service training followed by on-the-job coaching with verbal feedback, praise, and correction.

04

Why it matters

Skip stand-alone measurement lectures. Move straight to teaching staff how to write and use behavior programs, then watch them in action and give quick feedback. The payoff is staff who can build plans on their own and pupils whose behaviors actually improve.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Replace your next data-collection lecture with a live demo on writing a behavior plan, then give each teacher two minutes of specific feedback after they try it.

02At a glance

Intervention
behavioral skills training
Design
multiple baseline across participants
Population
mixed clinical
Finding
positive

03Original abstract

In contrast to previous studies where teachers were instructed how to implement behavior modification programs designed by an experimenter, teachers in the present experiment were taught how to write as well as implement behavior modification programs. The generalized effects of two training conditions on teacher and pupil behaviors were assessed by a multiple baseline design where, following baseline, two teachers of multi-handicapped deaf children were taught to set objectives and measure pupil performance (measurement training), Later, through a training manual, they learned a general problem-solving approach to writing behavior modification programs (programming training). After both training conditions, experimenter feedback was given for teachers' application of training to a target behavior for one pupil and generalization was measured across target behaviors for the same pupil and across pupils. It was found that measurement training had little general effect on either teacher behavior or pupil behavior. However, after programming training, teachers increased their program writing and correct use of behavior modification procedures and generalized this training across pupils and target behaviors. Along with these effects, there was improvement in pupil behaviors. Possible explanation for generalized effects of teacher training were considered.

Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1982 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1982.15-111