Behavioral Skills Training: A Practitioner's Guide to BST for Staff, Clients, Caregivers, and Pyramidal Rollouts

What BST actually is in 2026 practice

BST is a packaged training procedure with four required components in sequence: (1) instruction — a written or spoken description of the target skill and its rationale, (2) modeling — a live, video, or voice-over demonstration of the skill performed correctly, (3) rehearsal — the trainee performs the skill, usually in role-play before in-vivo, and (4) feedback — specific, contingent corrective feedback paired with reinforcement of correct steps, looped until the trainee meets a written mastery criterion (LaMarca et al., 2024) Nuzzolo et al. (2025). A systematic review of 20 SCED/quasi-experimental studies of BST with educators and other professionals serving children 0–21 found that BST consistently produced high implementation fidelity across diverse interventions, with the seven highest-quality studies providing conclusive evidence of effectiveness Slane & Lieberman‐Betz (2021). In a direct comparison, BST produced 100% implementation fidelity within a single 12-minute session for paraeducators teaching errorless listener-responding, while written instructions plateaued at 0–53% and brief performance feedback fell in between; mean training time to mastery was 51 minutes Ampuero & Robertson (2025). When a procedure has discrete steps and a measurable outcome, BST is the default first move.

The four components are not interchangeable

Component analyses have begun to map relative contribution. Lewon and colleagues' sequential analysis with three animal trainers showed that adding instructions, then modeling, then feedback each produced incremental gains in trainer treatment integrity Lewon et al. (2019). Keene and colleagues' alternating-treatments analysis with four preservice professionals complicates the picture: modeling alone produced the fastest mastery on data-collection procedures, with didactic instruction and feedback contributing less reliably Keene et al. (2026). Slane and Lieberman-Betz's systematic review identifies rehearsal and performance feedback as the active ingredients that most reliably drive fidelity gains across published studies Slane & Lieberman‐Betz (2021). The practical synthesis: none of the four components can be safely dropped by default, but if time forces a triage, modeling and rehearsal-with-feedback do the heaviest lifting and didactic instruction can be compressed.

Mastery criteria, fluency probes, and how long BST actually takes

The studies that hit clean acquisition curves all share a written mastery criterion. Common standards in the corpus are ≥80% accuracy across two consecutive role-play probes, ≥90% across one in-vivo probe, or 100% on a task-analysis checklist for safety-critical procedures, with the rehearsal-feedback cycle looped until the trainee meets the criterion rather than stopping at a fixed number of minutes (LaMarca et al., 2024) Hahs & Jarynowski (2019) Ampuero & Robertson (2025). With that structure, total training time is short. Olaff and colleagues taught three teaching assistants to ≥90% DTT accuracy from 44% baseline, with skills generalizing to untaught targets (97–98%) and maintained at 3 weeks without boosters Olaff et al. (2025). Hahs and Jarynowski raised PEAK Relational Training integrity from 78.8% to 98.8% in roughly two hours per staff member Hahs & Jarynowski (2019). Ampuero, Kinkade, and Ratkos pushed six AAC-naïve preservice educators to ≥90% icon-exchange fidelity in approximately one hour, with 2- and 4-week maintenance Ampuero et al. (2025). The take-home: competently delivered BST hits mastery in tens of minutes for most procedural skills, but the documented mastery probe — not elapsed time — is what defines completion.

BST for staff: RBTs, paraeducators, and direct-care technicians

The single largest application of BST in the corpus is training frontline staff to implement a procedure with high integrity. Zheng and colleagues taught three newly hired DTT-naïve staff to high-integrity discrete trial teaching with BST plus a brief video model, maintained at 7 days Zheng et al. (2025). Olaff and colleagues' DTT study across three teaching assistants in a Norwegian special-education classroom raised implementation from 44% baseline to 91%, with generalization to untaught programs and a new setting and maintenance at 3 weeks Olaff et al. (2025). Jimenez-Gomez and colleagues used BST to coach five technicians to implement play-based naturalistic interventions Jimenez‐Gomez et al. (2019). Tryggestad and colleagues brought four preschool staff to mastery on three incidental-teaching skills in a single BST session, without removing them from the classroom (Tryggestad et al., 2025). Sherman, Vedora, Hotchkiss, and Colón-Kwedor used interactive computer-based instruction to teach four direct-care staff with baseline 10–50% MSWO fidelity to >90% accuracy (Sherman et al., 2025). Sherman, Richardson, and Vedora used BST to bring two paraprofessionals' Direct Instruction error-correction and praise-timing skills from ≤50% to 100% Sherman et al. (2021). Yassa and colleagues taught three behavior-analytic trainees to implement multiple-schedule FCT for severe destructive behavior; all three reached fidelity post-training, two maintained at two weeks, and one required a second BST cycle after error analysis revealed change-over-delay errors Yassa et al. (2024). Hahs and Jarynowski raised PEAK Relational Training integrity from 78.8% to 98.8% across three school staff Hahs & Jarynowski (2019). Across all of these, the same pattern holds: a written task analysis, a clean four-component cycle, and a mastery probe.

BST for caregivers and parents

Parents trained via BST become competent skill instructors for their own children. Dogan and colleagues used a multiple-baseline across four parent-child dyads to teach parents to deliver social-skills instruction to their children with ASD; correct teaching responses rose sharply for both trained and untrained skills and remained high one month post-training Dogan et al. (2017). Vargas Londono and colleagues delivered BST via telehealth to six Latino caregivers of autistic children ages 3–8, using a multiple-baseline across behaviors design with each caregiver receiving a single-cycle telehealth BST (instruction → video model → caregiver rehearsal with their own child → feedback); BST produced rapid, large skill gains regardless of whether the training was delivered in Spanish or English, supporting caregiver language choice as a culturally responsive default rather than a tradeoff against efficacy (Vargas Londono et al., 2024). The implication is that telehealth BST works as a single-cycle package — instruction plus video model plus caregiver-with-child rehearsal plus feedback — delivered once per session after a probe, and that allowing caregivers to choose the language of rehearsal supports cultural responsiveness without compromising acquisition (Vargas Londono et al., 2024) Dogan et al. (2017).

BST for client skills: social, safety, vocational, motor, AAC

When a target client skill has discrete steps and a measurable outcome, BST routinely produces clean acquisition curves. Edgemon and colleagues taught job-interview answers, posture, and reduced fidgeting to seven adolescent males in a juvenile residential treatment facility; BST alone brought four to mastery and the remaining three reached criterion when stimulus or response prompts were added, with collateral gains in posture and smiling across all participants Edgemon et al. (2020). Radogna, D'Angelo, and Lerman delivered brief BST sessions before work periods to three Italian adults with autism or intellectual disability; one correct rehearsal was typically enough to reach mastery, and the supervisor provided naturally occurring cues and token reinforcement on-site (Radogna et al., 2024). Chambers and Radley trained typically developing peers to deliver BST to four adolescents with ASD on three soccer skills, with large gains maintained two weeks post-training Chambers & Radley (2020). Sump, Mottau, and LeBlanc taught a 15-year-old with autism to use Microsoft Word, Excel, and PowerPoint to mastery, with two-week maintenance Sump et al. (2019). Covey, Li, and Alber-Morgan trained peer models with BST to implement prompting, modeling, and praise during recess, doubling or tripling interactive play for four elementary students with moderate-to-severe disabilities Covey et al. (2021). Ampuero, Kinkade, and Ratkos taught six preservice educators to implement an icon-exchange AAC system to ≥90% accuracy in roughly one hour, with 2- and 4-week maintenance Ampuero et al. (2025). Rees and colleagues used BST inside a Preschool Life Skills curriculum to teach 13 prosocial skills to two preschoolers with maltreatment histories across short play-based blocks (Rees et al., 2024). Mattson and colleagues showed BST as a targeted supplement: a four-session presession package efficiently installed scripted cooperative vocalizations for two preschoolers with ASD whose activity-schedule compliance was already mastered (Mattson et al., 2024).

Pyramidal BST: training trainers

Pyramidal BST — training a small cohort to mastery, then having those trainees deliver BST to peers — is how the procedure scales beyond what a single BCBA's calendar can absorb. Ólafsdóttir and colleagues evaluated a two-tier model across 10 human-service practitioners; trainer procedural integrity rose from 26–36% baseline to 85–95% post-training, but variability in maintenance across tiers indicated that fidelity checks, booster sessions, and on-the-job coaching are required to counteract drift (Ólafsdóttir et al., 2025). Erath, DiGennaro Reed, and Blackman supplied a complementary tool: a 13-minute video-based module taught four residential and day-program staff to run BST sessions themselves with high integrity (two at 100% immediately, two after brief feedback), with fidelity maintained at 1- to 4-week probes Erath et al. (2021). Campanaro and colleagues showed computer-based instruction alone — with no live trainer — produced accurate BST implementation across three lead therapists at community ABA centers, and those CBI-trained trainers then taught BST to others, verifying onward dissemination Campanaro et al. (2023). The combined architecture: train a first tier with a 13-minute video or a CBI module to mastery, verify their BST delivery integrity with a probe, then have them run cycles on remaining staff, with fidelity probes and booster cycles scheduled across tiers (Ólafsdóttir et al., 2025) Erath et al. (2021) Campanaro et al. (2023).

Computer-based and telehealth-delivered BST

Computer-based instruction (CBI) and video-modeling formats reproduce the four-component architecture without a live trainer. Day-Watkins and colleagues showed that a 5-minute voice-over video module embeds all four components — narrated instruction, on-screen modeling, programmed pauses for trainee rehearsal, and on-screen feedback — letting the format train employees without a live trainer Day-Watkins et al. (2018). Sherman and colleagues' interactive CBI package taught four direct-care staff with baseline MSWO fidelity of 10–50% to >90% accuracy, with the active-response components doing the heavy lifting that rehearsal and feedback normally do (Sherman et al., 2025). Bartle and colleagues' multiple-exemplar versus single-exemplar comparison showed that multiple-exemplar video modeling alone quickly raised three direct-care staff to mastery on DTT, suggesting it can supplement or substitute for full BST when trainer time is scarce (Bartle et al., 2025). Telehealth fits the same architecture. Vargas Londono and colleagues showed single-cycle telehealth BST produced rapid caregiver skill gains across Spanish and English delivery (Vargas Londono et al., 2024). Togashi's two-step study with eight Japanese practitioners learning trial-based functional analysis pinpointed the role of synchronous BST: asynchronous CBI alone significantly improved trainees' TBFA knowledge but did not produce accurate implementation; adding a brief telehealth BST phase quickly lifted procedural integrity to mastery for most participants (Togashi, 2025). The architectural lesson: CBI and video modeling can carry instruction and modeling efficiently, but the rehearsal-and-feedback loop is where procedural integrity gets installed, and that loop usually still requires a synchronous step — live, video-based, or via telehealth (Togashi, 2025).

BST for FA interviewing, interpreter use, and culturally responsive practice

BST extends into interpersonal and culturally embedded skills with the same four-component structure. Gatzunis and colleagues used a multiple-baseline across skills to teach seven graduate ABA students to conduct culturally responsive, empathic functional-assessment interviews; all participants mastered the targeted interviewing, cultural-responsiveness, and compassionate-care skills and maintained them weeks later — with the caveat that operational definitions did not fully capture the quality or sincerity of empathic statements Gatzunis et al. (2023). Vazquez, Lechago, and McCarville used BST plus a 10-item checklist to teach three first-year ABA MA students interpreter-mediated sessions — interpreter positioning, first-person speech, clarifying and repeating statements — with skills generalizing to full clinical appointments (Vazquez et al., 2024). Interview quality, interpreter use, and cultural responsiveness are procedural variables, not soft skills, and BST trains them on the same architecture used for DTT or MSWO.

Treatment integrity, drift, and post-mastery probes

Even after a clean acquisition curve, fidelity erodes if no one is watching. Yassa and colleagues found that all three trainees reached high implementation accuracy on multiple-schedule FCT immediately post-training, but only two maintained near-perfect accuracy at 2-week probes; the third required an additional BST cycle after error analysis revealed change-over-delay errors Yassa et al. (2024). Morosohk and colleagues' staff-search study in a juvenile residential facility showed BST raising search fidelity, but covert observation revealed search duration drifted downward post-training; brief follow-up feedback restored full duration while maintaining correct steps — pairing BST with covert checks is the right move when a procedure requires both correct sequence and full time allotment Morosohk et al. (2025). Slane and Lieberman-Betz's systematic review identifies rehearsal and feedback as BST's active ingredients and implicitly argues those same ingredients need to keep showing up after training to defend the gains Slane & Lieberman‐Betz (2021). Čolić and colleagues' supervision survey (n=186) makes the converse point: trainees who received structured instruction and deliberate practice in giving and receiving feedback reported significantly higher confidence and satisfaction in feedback skills (Čolić et al., 2025).

Variants and adjacent procedures

Several recent studies test variants that compress one or more components. Overstreet, Harvey, and May tested a teach-back variant — replacing the rehearsal/feedback loops with trainees teaching the procedure back until mastery; three RBTs reached mastery-level NET implementation in less time than traditional BST, with social-validity ratings endorsing the streamlined format (Overstreet et al., 2025). Bartle and colleagues showed a multiple-exemplar video-only package can reach mastery-level integrity for some procedures, complicating the assumption that all four components are always required (Bartle et al., 2025). These variants don't replace BST but identify the loadbearing components — rehearsal with feedback, plus modeling — and offer triage paths when staffing makes full BST impractical Keene et al. (2026). Lewon and colleagues' scent-detection work showed stepwise gains from each component plus a counterintuitive finding that rat detection accuracy briefly dipped as trainer behavior tightened, arguing for tracking both trainer and learner measures Lewon et al. (2019). Tarbox, Szabo, and Aclan position ACT self-management skills as a legitimate BST target Tarbox et al. (2022). The Teacher Performance Rate and Accuracy (TPRA) measure drops a precision-teaching feedback layer into the feedback step of BST Nuzzolo et al. (2025).

Scaling and embedding BST in supervision and instructional design

Courtemanche and colleagues' large-scale study used a multiple-probe across-skills design with 18 school staff at a 1:18 trainer ratio; group BST with brief modeling and peer-led role-play produced mastery on every skill chain, with most steps maintained at 2-month follow-up Courtemanche et al. (2021). LaMarca and LaMarca's ADDIE article positions BST inside the implementation phase of a comprehensive ABA program, with cycles continuing until each technician demonstrates competency rather than stopping at a fixed training-hour budget (LaMarca et al., 2024). Kirkpatrick and colleagues embedded BST in a university methods course to teach token-economy implementation to four preservice teachers in a 60-minute block Kirkpatrick et al. (2021). BST works at the agency, school, university classroom, and supervisor caseload level — but only when its mastery criterion is treated as a hard gate rather than a target (LaMarca et al., 2024).

A foundation page should be honest about where the evidence comes from. The BST literature is unusually mature in one respect — there is one rigorous head-to-head comparison and a large multi-decade SCED base — but it remains thin at the randomized group-comparison layer Ampuero & Robertson (2025) Slane & Lieberman‐Betz (2021).

Systematic reviews. Slane and Lieberman-Betz's systematic review applied the SCARF appraisal protocol to 18 articles (20 studies) testing BST with educators and other professionals serving youth 0–21; across the 20 SCED/quasi-experimental studies, BST consistently enabled high-fidelity intervention implementation, with the seven highest-quality studies providing conclusive evidence of effectiveness Slane & Lieberman‐Betz (2021). Nuzzolo and colleagues' TPRA paper sits in this band as well, framing BST as the four-step training package and citing the broader literature that attests to its effectiveness across schools, homes, and healthcare settings Nuzzolo et al. (2025).

Comparative single-subject group studies. Ampuero and Robertson's multiple-baseline across three paraeducators directly compared BST, brief performance feedback, and written instructions; BST produced 100% implementation fidelity after the first 12-minute session, written instructions plateaued at 0–53%, and brief feedback fell in between — with mean BST training time to mastery of 51 minutes Ampuero & Robertson (2025). This is the closest the corpus comes to a clean head-to-head test of BST against alternative low-intensity training methods, and it is unambiguous on efficiency.

Quasi-experimental. Togashi's pre-post study with eight Japanese practitioners evaluated a two-step two-step two-step CBI then BST sequence and showed that asynchronous CBI alone improved knowledge but not implementation accuracy, while adding telehealth BST quickly produced procedural mastery in most participants (Togashi, 2025).

Single-subject experimental designs (SCED). Most BST evidence sits at this layer, and the corpus is dense across roles. Staff and paraprofessional acquisition: Olaff and colleagues (n=3 teaching assistants, DTT, 44%→91%, with generalization and 3-week maintenance) Olaff et al. (2025); Zheng and colleagues (n=3 newly hired DTT-naïve staff plus video model, 7-day maintenance) Zheng et al. (2025); Sherman, Richardson, and Vedora (n=2 paraprofessionals, three DI component skills, ≤50%→100%) Sherman et al. (2021); Hahs and Jarynowski (n=3 school staff, PEAK, 78.8%→98.8%) Hahs & Jarynowski (2019); Tryggestad and colleagues (n=4 preschool staff, single-session mastery) (Tryggestad et al., 2025); Jimenez-Gomez and colleagues (n=5 technicians, naturalistic interventions) Jimenez‐Gomez et al. (2019); Yassa and colleagues (n=3 trainees, multiple-schedule FCT, with 2-week maintenance for two of three) Yassa et al. (2024); Sherman, Vedora, Hotchkiss, and Colón-Kwedor (n=4 direct-care staff, interactive CBI for MSWO, 10–50%→>90%) (Sherman et al., 2025). Scaled and pyramidal: Courtemanche and colleagues (n=18 school staff, group BST at 1:18, 2-month maintenance) Courtemanche et al. (2021); Ólafsdóttir and colleagues (n=10 practitioners, two-tier pyramidal, 26–36%→85–95%) (Ólafsdóttir et al., 2025); Campanaro and colleagues (n=3 lead therapists, CBI alone seeded onward dissemination) Campanaro et al. (2023); Erath, DiGennaro Reed, and Blackman (n=4 staff, 13-min video, 1- to 4-week maintenance) Erath et al. (2021). Caregiver and parent training: Dogan and colleagues (n=4 dyads, 1-month maintenance) Dogan et al. (2017); Vargas Londono and colleagues (n=6 Latino caregivers, telehealth, Spanish vs. English equivalent) (Vargas Londono et al., 2024). Client skill targets: Edgemon and colleagues (n=7 adolescents, interview skills) Edgemon et al. (2020); Radogna and colleagues (n=3 Italian adults, job-related social skills) (Radogna et al., 2024); Chambers and Radley (n=4 adolescents with ASD, peer-mediated soccer skills) Chambers & Radley (2020); Sump, Mottau, and LeBlanc (n=1, computer skills) Sump et al. (2019); Covey, Li, and Alber-Morgan (n=4 students with peer models) Covey et al. (2021); Ampuero, Kinkade, and Ratkos (n=6 preservice educators, AAC icon exchange, 2- and 4-week maintenance) Ampuero et al. (2025); Rees and colleagues (n=2 preschoolers with trauma histories) (Rees et al., 2024); Mattson and colleagues (n=2 preschoolers, presession BST add-on for vocal scripts) (Mattson et al., 2024). Interview, interpreter, and cultural responsiveness: Gatzunis and colleagues (n=7 graduate students) Gatzunis et al. (2023); Vazquez and colleagues (n=3 graduate students, interpreter use) (Vazquez et al., 2024). Drift and maintenance: Morosohk and colleagues' juvenile-facility search study (n=4 staff, BST plus covert checks) Morosohk et al. (2025). Variants and component analyses: Overstreet, Harvey, and May's teach-back variant (n=3 RBTs) (Overstreet et al., 2025); Lewon and colleagues' sequential component analysis (n=3 animal trainers) Lewon et al. (2019); Keene and colleagues' alternating-treatments analysis (n=4 preservice professionals) Keene et al. (2026); Day-Watkins and colleagues' voice-over video format Day-Watkins et al. (2018); Bartle and colleagues' multiple-exemplar video modeling (Bartle et al., 2025); Kirkpatrick and colleagues' university-classroom application (n=4 preservice teachers, token economy) Kirkpatrick et al. (2021).

Survey and field-of-practice. Čolić and colleagues' online survey of 186 ABA fieldwork trainees showed that trainees who received structured instruction and deliberate practice in giving and receiving feedback — core BST architecture applied to feedback skills — reported significantly higher confidence and satisfaction; this is descriptive practice-pattern data, not outcome evidence (Čolić et al., 2025).

Theoretical and conceptual. LaMarca and LaMarca on ADDIE-based instructional design positions BST as the implementation-phase training method (LaMarca et al., 2024). Tarbox, Szabo, and Aclan on ACT within ABA scope identify BST as the procedure for training ACT-style self-management skills Tarbox et al. (2022). These are conceptual papers without experimental design — useful as procedural anchors, weaker as outcome evidence.

Bottom line. The convergent picture is strong for the operational claims this page makes — that BST reliably installs procedural skills to mastery, that mastery criteria define completion, that pyramidal and computer-based delivery scale efficiently, that telehealth BST works as a single-cycle package, that the rehearsal-and-feedback loop is the loadbearing layer, and that post-mastery probes are needed to defend gains Slane & Lieberman‐Betz (2021) Ampuero & Robertson (2025). It is weaker for any claim that one BST variant produces durably better outcomes than another at scale; the component-analysis literature is still small, and modeling-only and teach-back variants should not yet replace the four-component package as the default Keene et al. (2026) (Overstreet et al., 2025).

The BST decisions a senior practitioner makes are not "use BST or not" — that part is mostly settled — but "which delivery format, how much rehearsal, who runs it, and how do I catch drift after mastery." A defensible logic, drawn directly from the corpus:

1. New procedural skill, new staff, on-site delivery available. Run a full four-component BST cycle with a written task analysis and a documented mastery probe (≥80% across two consecutive role-plays, ≥90% on an in-vivo probe, or 100% on a safety-critical checklist). Expect mastery in 12–60 minutes per skill, total Ampuero & Robertson (2025) Hahs & Jarynowski (2019) Ampuero et al. (2025).
2. Multiple staff, limited trainer time. Use group BST with a 1:18 trainer-to-trainee ratio; pair brief 5-minute video or live modeling with peer-led role-play loops in 2–3 person clusters; verify with a per-skill mastery probe before moving to the next skill Courtemanche et al. (2021).
3. Distributed staff, multi-site agency, or limited in-person access. Replace the live-trainer instruction and modeling layer with a 5- to 13-minute video module or a self-paced CBI package, then deliver the rehearsal-and-feedback loop synchronously — in-person or via telehealth Day-Watkins et al. (2018) Erath et al. (2021) (Togashi, 2025). CBI alone is sufficient for some skills (interactive packages with active responding) but not for procedurally complex ones like TBFA — for those, plan a brief synchronous BST step after CBI (Sherman et al., 2025) (Togashi, 2025).
4. Whole-agency rollout. Train a first tier of 5–10 staff to mastery using a 13-minute video module or CBI, verify their BST delivery integrity with a probe, then have them run BST cycles on remaining staff; schedule fidelity probes at 1–4 weeks and booster cycles to catch drift across tiers (Ólafsdóttir et al., 2025) Erath et al. (2021) Campanaro et al. (2023).
5. Caregiver / parent training. Deliver single-cycle telehealth BST per session — instruction → video model → caregiver-with-child rehearsal → feedback — and let caregivers choose the language of rehearsal; expect rapid skill gains and 1-month maintenance (Vargas Londono et al., 2024) Dogan et al. (2017).
6. Client-level skill with discrete steps and a measurable outcome. Use BST as the primary instructional package for social, vocational, motor, computer, AAC, and life-skills targets; layer in stimulus or response prompts when one or two BST cycles do not produce mastery Edgemon et al. (2020) (Radogna et al., 2024) Sump et al. (2019) Chambers & Radley (2020) Ampuero et al. (2025).
7. FA interview, interpreter use, or culturally responsive practice. Treat the interpersonal procedure as a procedural skill: write a 10-item checklist, model the open-ended/active-listening/family-centered moves, role-play with feedback, probe in a mock caregiver meeting, generalize to a real appointment Gatzunis et al. (2023) (Vazquez et al., 2024).
8. Trainer time is the binding constraint and the procedure is well-bounded. Consider streamlined variants: multiple-exemplar video modeling alone, or a teach-back substitute for the rehearsal/feedback loop. These are not full BST; verify with a mastery probe and a 1- to 4-week maintenance check, and fall back to full BST if the probe fails (Bartle et al., 2025) (Overstreet et al., 2025).
9. Post-mastery maintenance. Schedule probes at 1–4 weeks for routine procedures and 2 weeks for complex or low-frequency procedures; pair BST with covert checks for any procedure where unobserved duration matters; run a brief follow-up feedback cycle when duration or fidelity drifts Yassa et al. (2024) Morosohk et al. (2025).
10. BST didn't work after two cycles. Run an error analysis on the trainee's misses (e.g., change-over-delay violations in multiple-schedule FCT), then deliver a targeted second cycle keyed to those errors rather than re-running the whole package; if the trainee still fails the probe, reconsider task-analysis grain or layer in stimulus or response prompts Yassa et al. (2024) Edgemon et al. (2020).
11. BST versus didactics versus supervision feedback alone. Use didactics alone only for conceptual prerequisites where you do not need procedural integrity; use brief performance feedback alone only when the trainee already has a baseline repertoire and is drifting on specific steps; use full BST whenever procedural fidelity is the goal — it outperforms both alternatives in the only direct head-to-head comparison Ampuero & Robertson (2025) Slane & Lieberman‐Betz (2021).

Agency staff onboarding and clinic-based training

Most BST onboarding work in the corpus comes from EIBI clinics, university clinics, and community ABA agencies. Zheng and colleagues' three newly hired DTT-naïve staff at an ABA clinic show the canonical pattern: BST plus a brief video model, mastery within a small number of sessions, 7-day maintenance probe Zheng et al. (2025). Olaff, Koch, and Brand replicated this for teaching assistants in a Norwegian special-education classroom; DTT skills generalized to untaught instructional targets (97–98% accuracy) and to a new classroom setting, maintained at 3 weeks without boosters Olaff et al. (2025). Sherman and colleagues' interactive CBI package for MSWO preference assessments produced the same mastery profile in a fully self-paced format — the cleanest demonstration that an agency can replace some live BST sessions with online modules without sacrificing fidelity (Sherman et al., 2025). Yassa and colleagues' multiple-schedule FCT study marks the harder edge: complex protocols require error-analysis follow-up to maintain fidelity at 2 weeks for some trainees Yassa et al. (2024). The operational pattern for agency leaders is a written competency matrix per role, BST cycles run to a documented mastery probe, scheduled probes after mastery, and an explicit pyramidal layer for any rollout larger than a single BCBA can deliver (Ólafsdóttir et al., 2025) (LaMarca et al., 2024).

Classrooms and paraprofessional training

Schools concentrate the largest pyramidal and group BST opportunities in the corpus. Courtemanche and colleagues' multiple-probe study with 18 school staff at a 1:18 trainer ratio established that group BST with 5-minute modeling plus peer-led role-play can produce mastery on every skill chain across a large cohort, with most steps maintained at 2 months Courtemanche et al. (2021). Ampuero and Robertson's three-condition comparison with paraeducators in public-school special-education classrooms is the cleanest in-classroom efficiency demonstration in the literature: BST produced 100% errorless listener-responding fidelity in a single 12-minute session, where written instructions stalled Ampuero & Robertson (2025). Sherman, Richardson, and Vedora extended BST to precise moment-to-moment Direct Instruction behaviors (error correction, withholding praise during correction, praise timing) that scripted lessons cannot capture Sherman et al. (2021). The TPRA paper argues for layering precision-teaching feedback on top of BST to make the feedback step itself more measurable Nuzzolo et al. (2025). Kirkpatrick and colleagues show the upstream version: BST embedded in a university methods course can train preservice teachers on token-economy implementation in a 60-minute block Kirkpatrick et al. (2021). Covey, Li, and Alber-Morgan show BST scaling laterally — neurotypical peers trained with BST then deliver prompting, modeling, and praise to classmates with moderate-to-severe disabilities, doubling or tripling interactive recess play Covey et al. (2021).

Parent training: in-clinic, in-home, and telehealth

Caregiver training is one of the densest patches of recent BST literature. Dogan and colleagues' multiple-baseline across four parent-child dyads is the foundational demonstration that BST equips parents to deliver social-skills instruction at home, with skills generalizing to untrained targets and maintained at one month Dogan et al. (2017). Vargas Londono and colleagues moved this to telehealth and language: six Latino caregivers received single-cycle telehealth BST per session (instruction → video model → caregiver rehearsal with their own child → feedback) and reached rapid skill gains regardless of whether training was delivered in Spanish or English, supporting caregiver language choice as a cultural-responsiveness default rather than a tradeoff against efficacy (Vargas Londono et al., 2024). Vazquez, Lechago, and McCarville used BST plus a 10-item checklist to teach three first-year ABA MA students interpreter-mediated sessions with Spanish-speaking caregivers, with skills generalizing to full clinical appointments (Vazquez et al., 2024). The operational pattern is single-cycle BST per session, a brief video model in the caregiver's preferred language, a child-as-rehearsal-partner role-play, and a written probe protocol for at least one follow-up at 2–4 weeks.

Residential and adult disability services

Residential and adult disability settings concentrate three problems: severe topographies, dispersed staff, and procedures that require both correct sequence and full duration. Erath, DiGennaro Reed, and Blackman's 13-minute video-based module is built for this — four adult residential and day-program staff reached high procedural integrity in BST delivery, with fidelity generalizing to new skills and maintained at 1- to 4-week probes Erath et al. (2021). Morosohk and colleagues' juvenile-facility search study shows the duration-drift problem head-on: BST raised search fidelity, but covert observation revealed staff were shortening searches; brief follow-up feedback restored full duration while preserving correct steps Morosohk et al. (2025). Edgemon and colleagues installed vocation-relevant interview skills for adolescent males in 15-minute sessions, mastery typically reached in 3–5 sessions, with prompt additions for the minority who did not reach criterion on BST alone Edgemon et al. (2020). Radogna and colleagues delivered brief BST before work periods to three Italian adults, then handed maintenance to the supervisor's naturally occurring cues and token reinforcement, with a brief monetary reward layered in only when BST alone was insufficient (Radogna et al., 2024).

• Skipping rehearsal. Delivering instruction and modeling without requiring trainees to actually perform the skill is the single highest-yield way to fail BST. Component analyses and systematic reviews converge on rehearsal-with-feedback as the active ingredient that distinguishes BST from a workshop Slane & Lieberman‐Betz (2021) Lewon et al. (2019). Written instructions alone produced 0–53% fidelity in the only clean head-to-head comparison; full BST produced 100% in 12 minutes Ampuero & Robertson (2025).
• Praise-only or criticism-only feedback. The "feedback" component is specific, contingent feedback that pairs corrective feedback for missed steps with positive feedback for correct steps. Generic praise does not shape, and generic criticism does not specify the missing step Slane & Lieberman‐Betz (2021) (Čolić et al., 2025).
• Modeling without explicit instruction. Modeling alone can be efficient for some procedures, but the corpus does not support dropping instruction by default; the safer move is to compress instruction, not omit it Keene et al. (2026) (Bartle et al., 2025).
• No in-vivo generalization probe. Role-play mastery is necessary but not sufficient. Olaff and colleagues' generalization probes to untaught DTT programs and a new classroom setting are an existence proof that gains can transfer — but only when generalization is explicitly programmed and probed Olaff et al. (2025).
• Treating mastery as a finish line. Yassa and colleagues' trainees reached fidelity post-training, but only two of three maintained at 2 weeks Yassa et al. (2024). Plan probes; don't assume durability.
• Dropping the duration check. Procedures that require full time allotment drift on duration even when steps stay correct. Pair BST with covert checks for any procedure where unobserved duration matters Morosohk et al. (2025).
• Rolling out pyramidal BST without fidelity probes across tiers. Ólafsdóttir and colleagues showed pyramidal BST works but fidelity varies across tiers; without explicit probes and booster sessions for second-tier trainers, downstream quality drifts (Ólafsdóttir et al., 2025).
• Assuming CBI alone produces accurate implementation. Togashi's TBFA study is explicit: asynchronous CBI improved knowledge but did not produce accurate implementation; the synchronous BST step was non-optional for procedural mastery (Togashi, 2025).
• Defining mastery by elapsed time rather than performance. BST cycles continue until each technician demonstrates competency rather than stopping after a fixed number of training hours (LaMarca et al., 2024).
• Treating interview, interpreter, and cultural responsiveness skills as not amenable to BST. They are: BST plus checklists installs these skills with the same architecture used for DTT Gatzunis et al. (2023) (Vazquez et al., 2024).

• Trainee fails the mastery probe after two BST cycles plus a targeted error-analysis cycle. Reconsider whether the task analysis is at the right grain, whether prompts (stimulus or response) are needed, or whether the procedure should be re-assigned. Edgemon and colleagues' BST plus prompts pattern is the right escalation move when BST alone is not enough Edgemon et al. (2020) Yassa et al. (2024).
• Procedural integrity drops below an a priori threshold across two consecutive maintenance probes. Run a booster BST cycle keyed to the specific errors; if the second probe still fails, escalate to live supervision rather than continuing to deliver remote BST Yassa et al. (2024) Morosohk et al. (2025).
• Pyramidal rollout shows tier-2 trainer integrity below the same threshold used for direct trainees. Do not let tier-2 trainers continue to train downstream staff; pull them back into a tier-1 booster before re-deploying them (Ólafsdóttir et al., 2025) Erath et al. (2021).
• Procedure carries safety risk and the trainee is at <100% on a critical step. For safety-critical procedures (search procedures, restraint, severe-behavior protocols) the standard is 100% on the safety-critical steps; if BST does not get there, do not deploy and consider re-assigning or referring to a specialist team Morosohk et al. (2025).
• Caregiver training is failing across language and visit format. When telehealth single-cycle BST does not produce caregiver acquisition across two visits, consider in-home BST, an interpreter, or a referral to a specialist parent-training program — language and access barriers are not always the loadbearing variable (Vargas Londono et al., 2024) (Vazquez et al., 2024).

The operational, practitioner-facing claims on this page sit on solid systematic-review and SCED evidence and one rigorous head-to-head efficiency comparison Ampuero & Robertson (2025) Slane & Lieberman‐Betz (2021). The thinner layers are at scale and at the component level. Component analyses are still few and contradictory — Lewon and colleagues' sequential analysis showed each component contributing incrementally Lewon et al. (2019), while Keene and colleagues' alternating-treatments analysis identified modeling alone as the single fastest component for a specific data-collection task Keene et al. (2026). Larger replications across skill types, populations, and settings would clarify when streamlined variants like teach-back or multiple-exemplar video modeling alone are safe substitutes (Overstreet et al., 2025) (Bartle et al., 2025). The maintenance picture also needs deeper work. Yassa and colleagues' 2-week probe suggests complex protocols drift faster than simple ones Yassa et al. (2024); Morosohk and colleagues' duration-drift finding is similarly suggestive Morosohk et al. (2025); but the field lacks longitudinal field studies tracking BST acquired skills across months. Pyramidal BST is the same way — Ólafsdóttir and colleagues quantified tier-to-tier variability, but a larger agency study across multiple sites would convert a methodological recommendation into durable management practice (Ólafsdóttir et al., 2025). Telehealth BST has been demonstrated with small samples; larger replications across U.S. and international contexts are needed to confirm scaling (Vargas Londono et al., 2024) (Togashi, 2025). The cultural-responsiveness and empathic-interview work needs an operational definition that captures sincerity in addition to topography Gatzunis et al. (2023). And the supervision-survey signal — that BST architecture applied to feedback skills correlates with trainee confidence — needs a controlled study, not just a survey (Čolić et al., 2025).

1. Run all four components, with rehearsal and feedback as the load-bearing pair. Instruction and modeling can be compressed, abbreviated, or video-delivered; rehearsal-with-feedback is what installs procedural fidelity, and the systematic-review evidence is unambiguous on this Slane & Lieberman‐Betz (2021) Ampuero & Robertson (2025).
2. Define mastery by performance, not elapsed time. Loop the rehearsal-feedback cycle until the trainee meets a written criterion (≥80% across two role-plays, ≥90% on an in-vivo probe, 100% on safety-critical checklists) (LaMarca et al., 2024) Hahs & Jarynowski (2019).
3. Expect short total training time. Most procedural skills hit mastery in 12–60 minutes of BST; multi-skill packages hit mastery in roughly 2 hours per staff member Ampuero & Robertson (2025) Hahs & Jarynowski (2019) Ampuero et al. (2025).
4. Default to BST over written instructions or feedback alone whenever procedural fidelity is the goal. The only direct comparison shows BST at 100% fidelity in 12 minutes versus 0–53% for written instructions Ampuero & Robertson (2025).
5. For agency rollouts, use pyramidal BST with explicit fidelity probes across tiers. Train a first tier to mastery using a 13-minute video module or CBI, verify their BST delivery integrity, then have them run BST cycles on remaining staff; probe at 1–4 weeks and run boosters when fidelity drops (Ólafsdóttir et al., 2025) Erath et al. (2021) Campanaro et al. (2023).
6. For caregivers, run single-cycle telehealth BST per session in the caregiver's preferred language. Instruction → video model → caregiver-with-child rehearsal → feedback; expect rapid acquisition with 1-month maintenance (Vargas Londono et al., 2024) Dogan et al. (2017).
7. Use CBI to carry instruction and modeling — but plan a synchronous rehearsal-and-feedback step for procedurally complex skills. Asynchronous CBI improves knowledge; mastery of procedures like TBFA still requires synchronous BST (Togashi, 2025) (Sherman et al., 2025).
8. Program generalization probes from the start. Untaught instructional targets, novel settings, and real students are not the same as role-play; Olaff and colleagues' explicit generalization probes are the model Olaff et al. (2025).
9. Schedule post-mastery probes at 1–4 weeks (2 weeks for complex protocols). Run booster BST cycles when fidelity drops; for procedures where unobserved duration matters, pair BST with covert checks and a brief feedback cycle when duration drifts Yassa et al. (2024) Morosohk et al. (2025).
10. When BST does not produce mastery, run an error analysis and deliver a targeted second cycle. Yassa and colleagues' change-over-delay errors in multiple-schedule FCT are the canonical example Yassa et al. (2024). Add stimulus or response prompts when error analysis points there Edgemon et al. (2020).
11. Use BST for client skills with discrete steps and a measurable outcome. Social, vocational, motor, computer, AAC, and life-skills targets all have clean acquisition curves under BST; layer prompts when one or two cycles are insufficient Edgemon et al. (2020) (Radogna et al., 2024) Sump et al. (2019) Ampuero et al. (2025).

Primary research synthesized in this guide. DOIs link to the original source.

• Tryggestad, H., Eldevik, S., Eikeseth, S., Strømgren, B., & Kingsdorf, S. (2025). Staff training to improve the preschool educational environment for children with special needs. Behavior Analysis in Practice. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-025-01123-3 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-025-01123-3
• Vargas Londono, F., Falcomata, T. S., Lim, N., Ramirez-Cristoforo, A., Paez, Y., & Garza, A. (2024). Do cultural adaptations matter? Comparing caregiver training in different language for Latino caregivers of autistic children: A telehealth‑based evaluation. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 17, 1113–1133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-024-00930-4 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-024-00930-4
• Ólafsdóttir, A. B., Sveinbjörnsdóttir, B., & Gunnarsson, K. F. (2025). Expanding the pyramidal staff training approach. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2025.2499447 https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2025.2499447
• Togashi, K. (2025). Training in trial-based functional analysis via computer-based instruction and behavioral skills training. Behavior Analysis in Practice. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-025-01136-y https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-025-01136-y
• Edgemon, A. K., Rapp, J. T., Brogan, K. M., Richling, S. M., Hamrick, S. A., Peters, R. J., & O'Rourke, S. A. (2020). Behavioral skills training to increase interview skills of adolescent males in a juvenile residential treatment facility. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 53(4), 2303-2318. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.707 https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.707
• LaMarca, V. J., & LaMarca, J. M. (2024). Using the ADDIE model of instructional design to create programming for comprehensive ABA treatment. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 17, 371–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-024-00908-2 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-024-00908-2
• Dogan, R. K., King, M. L., Fischetti, A. T., Lake, C. M., Mathews, T. L., & Warzak, W. J. (2017). Parent‐implemented behavioral skills training of social skills. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50(4), 805-818. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.411 https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.411
• Radogna, C., D’Angelo, G., & Lerman, D. C. (2024). Assessing and teaching job‑related social skills to adults with neurodevelopmental disorders in Italy. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 17, 803–814. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-023-00873-2 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-023-00873-2
• Olaff, H. S., Koch, I. B., & Brand, D. (2025). Using Behavioral Skill Training to Extend Discrete-Trial Teaching Skills Across Instructional Programs. Behavior Analysis in Practice. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-025-01094-5 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-025-01094-5
• Day-Watkins, J., Pallathra, A. A., Connell, J. E., & Brodkin, E. S. (2018). Behavior Skills Training with Voice-Over Video Modeling. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 38(2-3), 258-273. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2018.1454871 https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2018.1454871
• Zheng, T., Albright, L., & Mahoney, A. (2025). The Use of Behavioral Skills Training to Teach Staff Discrete Trial Teaching. Behavioral Interventions, 40(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.2070 https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.2070
• Courtemanche, A. B., Turner, L. B., Molteni, J. D., & Groskreutz, N. C. (2021). Scaling Up Behavioral Skills Training: Effectiveness of Large-Scale and Multiskill Trainings. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 14(1), 36-50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-020-00480-5 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-020-00480-5
• Sherman, J., Richardson, J., & Vedora, J. (2021). The Use of Behavioral Skills Training to Teach Components of Direct Instruction. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 14(4), 1085-1091. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-021-00594-4 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-021-00594-4
• Morosohk, E., Miltenberger, R., Baruni, R., & Cook, J. (2025). Behavioral Skills Training to Increase Fidelity of Staff Searches at a Juvenile Residential Facility. Behavioral Interventions, 40(4). https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.70055 https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.70055
• Gatzunis, K. S., Weiss, M. J., Ala’i-Rosales, S., Fahmie, T. A., & Syed, N. Y. (2023). Using Behavioral Skills Training to Teach Functional Assessment Interviewing, Cultural Responsiveness, and Empathic and Compassionate Care to Students of Applied Behavior Analysis. Behavior Analysis in Practice. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-023-00794-0 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-023-00794-0
• Yassa, R. R., Mitteer, D. R., Greer, B. D., Angley, S. M., McCabe, L. H., & Elwasli, O. M. (2024). Teaching trainees to implement functional communication training with multiple schedules: An evaluation of training effects and durability. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 57(4), 999-1015. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.2915 https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.2915
• Erath, T. G., DiGennaro Reed, F. D., & Blackman, A. L. (2021). Training human service staff to implement behavioral skills training using a video‐based intervention. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 54(3), 1251-1264. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.827 https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.827
• Lewon, M., Webb, E. K., Brotheridge, S. M., Cox, C., & Fast, C. D. (2019). Behavioral skills training in scent detection research: Interactions between trainer and animal behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 52(3), 682-700. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.566 https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.566
• Vazquez, D. J., Lechago, S. A., & McCarville, M. J. (2024). Training behavior analysis graduate students to work with an interpreter. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 17, 1160–1174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-024-00938-w https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-024-00938-w
• Campanaro, A. M., Vladescu, J. C., DeBar, R. M., Deshais, M. A., & Manente, C. J. (2023). Using computer‐based instruction to teach implementation of behavioral skills training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 56(1), 241-257. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.962 https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.962
• Jimenez‐Gomez, C., McGarry, K., Crochet, E., & Chong, I. M. (2019). Training behavioral technicians to implement naturalistic behavioral interventions using behavioral skills training. Behavioral Interventions, 34(3), 396-404. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1666 https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1666
• Rees, R. E., Seel, C. J., Huxtable, B. G., & Austin, J. L. (2024). Using the Preschool Life Skills program to support skill development for children with trauma histories. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 17, 693–708. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-023-00892-z https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-023-00892-z
• Ampuero, M. E. & Robertson, R. E. (2025). Comparing the Effectiveness and Efficiency of Behavioral Skills Training and a Brief Performance Feedback Intervention During the Training of Paraeducators Supporting Students with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Journal of Behavioral Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-025-09588-6 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-025-09588-6
• Chambers, C. & Radley, K. C. (2020). Training Soccer Skills to Adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorder via Peer-Mediated Behavioral Skills Training. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 13(2), 454-461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-019-00381-2 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-019-00381-2
• Sump, L. A., Mottau, B. C., & LeBlanc, L. A. (2019). Evaluating Behavioral Skills Training to Teach Basic Computer Skills to a Young Adult with Autism. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 12(2), 331-334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-018-00295-5 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-018-00295-5
• Sherman, J., Vedora, J., Hotchkiss, R., & Colón-Kwedor, C. (2025). An analysis of interactive computer training on staff acquisition of MSWO preference assessment implementation. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 45(4), 307–323. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2024.2438013 https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2024.2438013
• Covey, A., Li, T., & Alber-Morgan, S. R. (2021). Using Behavioral Skills Training to Teach Peer Models: Effects on Interactive Play for Students with Moderate to Severe Disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 44(1), 19-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43494-020-00034-y https://doi.org/10.1007/s43494-020-00034-y
• Slane, M. & Lieberman‐Betz, R. G. (2021). Using behavioral skills training to teach implementation of behavioral interventions to teachers and other professionals: A systematic review. Behavioral Interventions, 36(4), 984-1002. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1828 https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1828
• Overstreet, D., Harvey, C., & May, M. E. (2025). Using the teach-back method to improve staff implementation of naturalistic environmental teaching. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2025.2594400 https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2025.2594400
• Kirkpatrick, M., Rehfeld, D. M., Akers, J. S., Rivera, G., & Sulak, T. N. (2021). Using behavioral skills training with preservice teachers in the university classroom. Behavioral Interventions, 36(1), 145-158. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1764 https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1764
• Ampuero, M. E., Kinkade, E. M., & Ratkos, T. (2025). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Behavioral Skills Training on the Implementation of an Icon Exchange Communication Intervention by Preservice Educators. Education and Treatment of Children, 48(2), 141-154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43494-025-00153-4 https://doi.org/10.1007/s43494-025-00153-4
• Keene, H., Elfers, E., & Shepley, S. B. (2026). A Component Analysis of Behavioral Skills Training for Teaching Data Collection to Preservice Professionals. Behavioral Interventions, 41(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.70071 https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.70071
• Hahs, A. D. & Jarynowski, J. (2019). Targeting Staff Treatment Integrity of the PEAK Relational Training System Using Behavioral Skills Training. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 12(1), 209-215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-018-00278-6 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-018-00278-6
• Bartle, G. E., Ruby, S. A., & DiGennaro Reed, F. D. (2025). The effects of video modeling containing different exemplar types on procedural integrity. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2025.2476425 https://doi.org/10.1080/01608061.2025.2476425
• Mattson, S. L., Higbee, T. S., Nichols, B., Aguilar, J., & Campbell, V. E. (2024). Effects of an activity schedule intervention package on cooperative vocal exchanges during learning centers. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 17, 1175–1190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-024-00939-9 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-024-00939-9