Training Individuals to Implement Discrete Trials with Fidelity: A Meta-Analysis
Abstract
Discrete trial training is a popular teaching method for individuals with autism, but it is not easily implemented with fidelity due to its complexity. This is the first meta-analysis of single-case experimental design studies to quantify the impact of behavioral skills training on individuals’ ability to implement discrete trials with fidelity. Furthermore, this meta-analysis examines the four training methods that make up behavioral skills training—feedback, instruction, modeling, and rehearsal—to determine the “active ingredients” of behavioral skills training. A total of 46 single-case experimental design studies are included in this meta-analysis. Hierarchical linear modeling, which has the ability to analyze clustered data, is the meta-analytic technique used to estimate the effectiveness of behavioral skills training across studies. Results show that behavioral skills training has a statistically significant positive effect on discrete trial training implementation fidelity; therefore, behavior skills training is recommended for discrete trial training implementation instruction.
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?
BST is an evidence-based approach for training individuals to implement DTT procedures.
“Behavioral skills training (BST) is an evidence-based approach for training individuals to implement discrete-trial teaching procedures.”
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 Fingerhut & Moeyaert, 2022
A recent meta-analysis identified a statistically significant difference in procedural fidelity of DTT implementation between an active-BST phase and post-BST phase (or maintenance phase), suggesting participants' procedural fidelity declined after completion of training.
“This is especially important given that a recent meta-analysis identified a statistically significant difference in procedural fidelity of DTT implementation between an active-BST phase and post-BST phase (or maintenance phase), suggesting participants' procedural fidelity declined after completion of training (i.e., performance did not maintain; Fingerhut & Moeyaert, 2022).”
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 Fingerhut & Moeyaert, 2022
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 66 · Cited by 15
- Authors
- Fingerhut, J., & Moeyaert, M.
- Affiliations
- Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
- University at Albany, State University of New York (US)
- Corresponding author
- Fingerhut, Joelle
- Venue
- Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2022-03-08
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 239-250
- ISSN
- 0887-1566 (ISSN-L)
- 1088-3576
- 1538-4829
- OpenAlex
- W4221020217
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 66
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4
- FWCI
- 0.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- institute of education sciences (R305D190022)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Child Nutrition and Feeding Issues
- Keywords
- discrete trial training, implementation fidelity, behavioral skills training, autism spectrum disorder, trainer training, feedback, modeling, rehearsal, instruction, single-case experimental design
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
