A Brief Evaluation of a Pictorially Enhanced Self-Instruction Packet on Participant Fidelity across Multiple ABA Procedures
Open accessAbstract
Enhanced self-instructions have been previously shown to lead to high levels of training protocol fidelity by lower level staff applying applied behavior analysis (ABA) protocols. An A-B replication series design across participants was used to gather preliminary evidence on the breadth of benefit of this approach to staff training, considered across common training tasks. Participants (N = 14) with no previous background in ABA learned how to conduct either two preference assessments (paired stimulus and multiple stimulus without replacement) or two acquisition discrete trial programs (match to sample and motor imitation) under two different self-instruction conditions. Procedures were trained using textual information only (i.e., standard packet) or textual information enhanced with visual cues (i.e., enhanced packet). Eight of the participants received a standard packet followed by an enhanced packet; six received them in reverse order. Each sequence was replicated within participants across the two tasks. No follow-up feedback or training was provided during either condition so as not to contaminate assessment of the effects of these self-instructions on procedural fidelity. Results showed that participants achieved near-mastery levels of performance under the enhanced packet condition. Seven of the eight participants who received the standard packet first improved in fidelity after receiving the enhanced packet. Where there was some evidence of maintenance of gains in some participants of new tasks trained again with the standard packet, reintroduction of the enhanced packet led to high fidelity in all cases. It appears that previous experimental findings showing the benefit of enhanced self-instructional training on the procedural fidelity of lower level training staff apply across a wide range of common ABA tasks.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Of the five studies that isolated the effects of instructions, all did so in the context of evaluating the effects of a self-instruction manual on DTT performance.
“However, of the five studies that isolated the effects of instructions (i.e., Al-Nasser et al., 2019; Study 1 of Arnal et al., 2007;Fazzio et al., 2009;Severtson & Carr, 2012;Thomson et al., 2012) all did so in the context of evaluating the effects of a self-instruction manual on DTT performance.”
From Training individuals to implement discrete‐trial teaching procedures using behavioral skills training: A scoping review with implications for practice and research (2024) · cites this paper as Al-Nasser et al., 2019
Cites
Vladescu, J. C., Carroll, R., Paden, A., & Kodak, T. M. (2012) · Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis · doi:10.1901/jaba.2012.45-419 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
Macurik, K. M., O'Kane, N. P., Malanga, P., & Reid, D. H. (2008) · Behavioral Interventions · doi:10.1002/bin.261 · Cited by 55 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Briggs, A. M., Zohr, S. J., & Harvey, O. B. (2024) · Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis · doi:10.1002/jaba.1024 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
- Authors
- Al-Nasser, T., Larry Williams, W., & Feeney, B.
- Affiliations
- University of Nevada, Reno (US)
- Corresponding author
- Al-Nasser, Thouraya
- ORCID
- Al-Nasser, Thouraya
- Venue
- Behavior Analysis in Practice
- Published
- 2018-09-18
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 387-395
- ISSN
- 1998-1929 (ISSN-L)
- 2196-8934
- PMC
- PMC6745586
- OpenAlex
- W2890951763
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 0.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Behavior Analysis in Practice (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Human Resource Development and Performance Evaluation
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
- Keywords
- self-education, pictorial cues, procedural fidelity, employee training, applied behavior analysis, preference assessment, discrete trial training
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review