These answers draw in part from “Development Of A Pyramidal Training Model To Improve Implementation Of PFA/SBT” by Jacob Huber, M.A., BCBA, LBA (BehaviorLive), and extend it with peer-reviewed research from our library of 27,900+ ABA research articles. Clinical framing, BACB ethics code references, and cross-links below are synthesized by Behaviorist Book Club.
View the original presentation →Practical Functional Assessment (PFA) and Skills-Based Treatment (SBT) is a clinical protocol developed to address severe challenging behavior, particularly in clients for whom standard function-based treatment has been insufficient. The PFA component uses an Interview-Informed Synthesized Contingency Analysis (IISCA) to identify the specific synthesized contingency maintaining challenging behavior, producing richer assessment data than many traditional functional analysis conditions. The SBT component builds on this assessment by establishing conditions in which the client can reliably contact reinforcement through communication and cooperation rather than challenging behavior, starting from conditions of extremely low challenge and systematically increasing demands as fluency develops. Specialized training is required because the protocol requires real-time clinical judgment — knowing when to advance, maintain, or withdraw demand based on behavioral signals — that does not develop through reading or observation alone.
A pyramidal training model is a hierarchical staff development structure in which a small number of expert practitioners train an intermediate tier of practitioners, who then train direct care staff under ongoing expert oversight. The model leverages the training capacity of intermediate practitioners — typically BCBAs or senior clinicians — to extend training reach without requiring one-to-one expert-to-staff training ratios. In ABA settings, the pyramidal model typically involves an expert level (the PFA/SBT trainer or certified practitioner), an intermediate level (BCBAs certified to train staff), and a direct care level (RBTs and BCaBAs receiving BST-based training from the intermediate tier). The quality of the entire model depends on the fidelity maintained at each tier, which requires explicit certification criteria and ongoing supervision of intermediate trainers.
Competency-based measures for PFA/SBT training should reflect the specific behavioral components of the protocol and the conditions under which each component must be performed. The development process involves three steps: identifying the component skills through task analysis of the protocol, specifying the behavioral criteria for each component (what does correct look like, under what conditions, to what frequency or accuracy standard), and determining the assessment context that provides valid data on whether the criterion is met. For PFA/SBT, valid assessment requires at minimum a role-play scenario that approximates the client interaction context, and ideally direct observation during an actual session with a client. Scoring rubrics for each component should be behaviorally anchored — describing specific observable behavior rather than evaluative categories — so that assessment is reliable across multiple assessors.
Common barriers identified in PFA/SBT training implementation include: the complexity of real-time reinforcer delivery parameters that require practice under actual client-response conditions to develop reliably, the challenge of maintaining a positive and calm therapeutic demeanor during behavioral escalations (which is a behavioral skill, not simply a personality trait, and requires deliberate practice), difficulty with the shaping judgment calls about when to advance challenge levels, and inconsistent application of escape extinction procedures that are used during some phases of SBT. Organizational barriers include insufficient time for the supervised practice required to reach criterion, competing clinical demands that interrupt training session consistency, and inadequate fidelity monitoring infrastructure to identify drift before it affects client outcomes.
Client outcome data in the context of PFA/SBT implementation should include direct measures of challenging behavior frequency and severity across sessions, rate of progress through the SBT phases, and — as a social validity measure — caregiver satisfaction and capacity to implement procedures independently. These data should be tracked and compared across clients receiving services from staff at different levels of training certification, and across time periods corresponding to different phases of the training rollout. When client outcomes are significantly better for clients served by highly certified staff than for those served by staff earlier in the training hierarchy, this provides both validation of the training model and identification of the minimum training threshold required for adequate outcomes.
Initial training produces an initial behavioral repertoire; ongoing supervision is what maintains and extends that repertoire as staff encounter novel clients and clinical challenges. For PFA/SBT specifically, ongoing supervision should include regular direct observation of session implementation with structured fidelity assessment, review of client progress data in relation to protocol implementation quality, and coaching on specific components where drift is identified. Intermediate trainers in a pyramidal model should themselves receive ongoing supervision from the expert level — the oversight that applies to direct care staff also applies to trainers. Fidelity monitoring that is reduced or eliminated after initial certification consistently produces performance drift, which is why maintenance oversight is a structural component of any sustainable pyramidal model.
Several criteria suggest that a pyramidal training approach is warranted: the procedure is complex enough that one-to-one expert training of all direct care staff is logistically infeasible, the evidence base for the procedure is strong enough to justify the training investment, the organization has sufficient staff with the expertise to serve as intermediate trainers, and the patient population is large enough that training scale produces meaningful clinical impact. Simpler procedures with lower implementation demands may be more efficiently disseminated through standard BST delivered by a BCBA supervisor. Pyramidal training has the highest return when the procedure is both evidence-strong and training-intensive — PFA/SBT is a clear example, but other protocols like functional communication training in high-severity contexts may also warrant this level of training infrastructure.
A valid fidelity assessment tool for PFA/SBT should include items for each procedural component across both the PFA and SBT phases. For the IISCA, this includes accuracy of history-gathering, correct identification of the synthesized contingency, and appropriate session setup. For SBT, items should address reinforcer delivery parameters (immediacy, quality, consistency), demand presentation accuracy across phases, appropriate management of behavioral escalations, and correct progression decision-making based on session data. Each item should have a behaviorally anchored rubric with at least three levels (correct, approximation, incorrect). The tool should be validated through inter-rater reliability assessment before use as a formal certification instrument. Minimum acceptable reliability coefficients should be specified and reported when the tool is used for high-stakes decisions.
Training drift at intermediate tiers — where certified trainers begin to deviate from BST delivery standards over time — is the most common failure mode of pyramidal models. Huber's approach addresses this through two mechanisms: the establishment of clear certification criteria that intermediate trainers must meet before training staff independently, and ongoing performance monitoring that includes assessment of trainer behavior (not just trainee outcomes) as a distinct data stream. When trainer-level data show drift from certification criteria, the appropriate response is targeted coaching and reassessment of the trainer rather than assuming that poor direct care staff performance is the root cause. This two-tier data analysis is what distinguishes a genuinely pyramidal quality assurance system from a cascade training model with no upward accountability.
Social validity refers to the degree to which the goals, procedures, and outcomes of a behavioral intervention are acceptable and meaningful to the people most directly affected — primarily the client, family, and care team. PFA/SBT has high social validity in part because its emphasis on building a positive relationship with the client and on teaching communication skills is intuitively aligned with what families want for their children. This social validity is a training consideration because procedures that families and care staff find acceptable are implemented more consistently and are more likely to be maintained after the formal training period ends. Pyramidal training should therefore include explicit training on the rationale and social validity of PFA/SBT — not just the procedural steps — so that intermediate trainers can communicate this to direct care staff in ways that build motivation and investment in correct implementation.
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.
Ready to go deeper? This course covers this topic with structured learning objectives and CEU credit.
Development Of A Pyramidal Training Model To Improve Implementation Of PFA/SBT — Jacob Huber · 1.5 BACB Supervision CEUs · $30
Take This Course →We extended these answers with research from our library — dig into the peer-reviewed studies behind the topic, in plain-English summaries written for BCBAs.
280 research articles with practitioner takeaways
279 research articles with practitioner takeaways
252 research articles with practitioner takeaways
1.5 BACB Supervision CEUs · $30 · BehaviorLive
Research-backed educational guide with practice recommendations
Side-by-side comparison with clinical decision framework
You earn CEUs from a dozen different places. Upload any certificate — from here, your employer, conferences, wherever — and always know exactly where you stand. Learning, Ethics, Supervision, all handled.
No credit card required. Cancel anytime.
All behavior-analytic intervention is individualized. The information on this page is for educational purposes and does not constitute clinical advice. Treatment decisions should be informed by the best available published research, individualized assessment, and obtained with the informed consent of the client or their legal guardian. Behavior analysts are responsible for practicing within the boundaries of their competence and adhering to the BACB Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts.