Behavioral Skills Training (BST) is an effective training package that consists of instructions, modeling, rehearsal, and feedback. Although the efficacy of BST has been demonstrated, previous research has not clearly delineated its active components. This study used an alternating‐treatment design embedded within ABC and ABCD designs to evaluate the independent effects of all components of BST for training teachers to conduct functional analyses. Prior to baseline, teachers reviewed written instructions. Following baseline, modeling, rehearsal, and feedback training occurred independently during the first training phase and in combination during subsequent training phases. Rehearsal was ineffective, whereas feedback was effective at improving the performance of all teachers. Modeling was less effective than feedback, such that improvements only occurred for some teachers and some functional analysis responses. Thus, feedback, and to a lesser extent, modeling are the effective and perhaps necessary components of BST. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A component analysis is a systematic assessment of 2 or more independent variables or components that comprise a treatment package. Component analyses are important for the analysis of behavior; however, previous research provides only cursory descriptions of the topic. Therefore, in this review the definition of component analysis is discussed, and a notation system for evaluating the experimental designs of component analyses is described. Thirty articles that included a component analysis were identified via a literature search. The majority of the studies successfully identified a necessary component; however, most of these studies did not evaluate the sufficiency of the necessary component. The notation system may be helpful in developing experimental designs that best suit the purpose of studies aimed at conducting component analyses of treatment packages.

This study investigated performance under and preference for continuous and discontinuous work-reinforcer schedules in 3 students who had been diagnosed with autism. Under continuous schedules, participants completed all work and consumed all reinforcers in contiguous units. Under discontinuous schedules, work and reinforcer access were broken up into smaller units. During the alternating-schedules phase, session duration was shorter in the continuous schedule for 2 participants. During free choice, all 3 participants preferred the continuous work schedule.

One concern with training discrete-trial teaching (DTT) is the generalization of teaching skills. This study employed behavioral skills and general-case training to train three parents to conduct DTT. A multiple-baseline-across-participants-experimental design assessed the effects of parent training on the generalization of parents' DTT to non-trained programs and on child behavior. Following training, generalization of parent DTT skills occurred, but the effects on child behavior were variable. Implications of programming for generalization and the effects of parent training on child performance are discussed.

When the overall magnitude of reinforcement is matched between 2 alternative work schedules, some students prefer to complete all of their work for continuous access to a reinforcer (continuous work) rather than distributed access to a reinforcer while they work (discontinuous work). We evaluated a student's preference for continuous work by manipulating the overall magnitude of reinforcement associated with continuous work. Preference for continuous work persisted despite a 20% decrease in reinforcer magnitude; however, a 40% decrease in reinforcer magnitude produced a shift in preference to discontinuous work.

Recent research has demonstrated that some participants prefer to complete a larger series of responses in exchange for a longer duration of reinforcer access, rather than completing fewer tasks associated with smaller, but more frequent, reinforcer access. This review provides a summary of this line of research, examines variables contributing to participant preference and performance under different response-reinforcer arrangements, and discusses limitations and areas for future research.

The current study was a replication of Petursdottir and Aguilar (Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 58-68, 2016). Two different stimulus presentations were evaluated during auditory-visual discrimination training. A sample-first procedure, in which the sample stimulus was presented before the comparison stimuli, was compared to a comparison-first procedure, in which the sample presentation was presented after the comparison stimuli. The results indicated that both participants learned more quickly in the comparison-first condition, a finding that differed from Petursdottir and Aguilar (Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 58-68, 2016).

The current study compared the use of a differential observing response (DOR) during receptive label training to a condition without the DOR. We extended the research on DORs used during receptive label training by using them with progressive prompt delay procedures and assessing responding following mastery without the DOR. Results indicated that both participants performed better in the DOR condition during the first comparison, but results were less clear in the second comparison.