Individualization and iterative design are essential components of the assessment and treatment of challenging behavior. Currently, there are few validated frameworks for engaging in iterative processes. Due to the nature of single-case design, empirically rigorous evaluations of decision-tree processes are particularly prohibitive. Notwithstanding, evaluations are needed. In this paper we first describe a function-informed and mechanisms-based (FIMB) framework for selecting treatment components employed by a university-based practicum experience designed to expose pre-service practitioners to a valid treatment process for challenging behavior. Then, we share a completed retrospective consecutive case series across a 6-year period in which we conducted a technique analysis to identify which procedures were most commonly selected in the practicum, and the impact of those choices on client outcomes. The results suggest that the model can be highly effective for some, but not all, cases. Implications are discussed.

In theory, the principles, processes, and concepts of applied behavior analysis are universally applicable. In practice, clinicians commit their lives to serving specific populations in specific settings for which specialization is needed. The purpose of this 6-year retrospective consecutive case series was to describe and evaluate the quality and validity of a practicum experience tailored to develop specialized expertise in the assessment and treatment of challenging behavior for pre-service practitioners enrolled in a department of a special education program.

This paper represents the third in a three‐part series intended to challenge the social validity of the services provided by a university‐based practicum for addressing the challenging behavior of individuals with disabilities. In this paper, we surveyed referring stakeholders (e.g., parents, teachers) of past service recipients to explore the acceptability of the service model's goals, methods, and outcomes. We probed for tensions resultant from the model's threefold mission (service, training, and research) and explored how conflicts between these goals affected the quality of our services. Generally, results were favorable and appeared to support continued model implementation, but not without qualification. Emergent themes, areas for improvement, and future directions for intervention research are all discussed.

Little research has highlighted how evidence‐based practices (e.g., functional communication training [FCT]) might be adapted for bilingual learners with disabilities. In the current study, we served 2 children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and challenging behavior whose parents primarily spoke Spanish at home, and whose teachers primarily spoke English at school. Following traditional FCT (i.e., 1 language only), we systematically replicated the findings of Neely, Graber et al. (2020) by demonstrating that mands in the untrained language (i.e., English) did not emerge when trained mands (i.e., Spanish) contacted extinction in alternative‐language contexts. Simultaneously, challenging behavior consistently resurged. After children received explicit training with both languages and were taught to change the language of request when initial attempts were unsuccessful (i.e., “repair the message” training), these same children successfully obtained high rates of reinforcement in both language contexts, and challenging behavior rarely occurred.

No abstract