Cited by 11Behavioral and Psychological StudiesHuman Resource Development and Performance EvaluationAutism Spectrum Disorder Research

A Brief Evaluation of a Pictorially Enhanced Self-Instruction Packet on Participant Fidelity across Multiple ABA Procedures

Open access
Al-Nasser, Thouraya, Larry Williams, W., Feeney, Brian·2019·Behavior Analysis in Practice

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1007/s40617-018-00282-w

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Authors
Al-Nasser, T., Larry Williams, W., & Feeney, B.
Affiliations
University of Nevada, Reno (US)
Corresponding author
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
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
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