Another Perspective on Research as a Measure of High-Quality Practitioner Training: a Response to Dixon, Reed, Smith, Belisle, and Jackson

Abstract

Dixon et al. ( 8:7-15, 2015) argued that the research productivity of behavior analytic graduate programs may be a reasonable criterion to evaluate training program quality. They reviewed the cumulative publications of graduate programs. From this analysis, they generated a top ten list of graduate programs with the greatest number of faculty publications and, because of the number of these publications, inferred that they may be better training programs than those not on the list. We countered that the quality of graduate training programs is evident in the behavior of those who are trained, and thus, our field's interest should focus on determining the degree to which individual program graduates-and not their faculty-have mastered the research process. Thus, we proposed including student authors' work as an alternative to Dixon et al.'s analysis.

Top 10 Responses to the Commentaries on Dixon, Reed, Smith et al. (2015)

“…During our own data collection, we observed that the article count generated by a specific search could vary somewhat from day to day. 1 Consequently, we are not surprised that several commentators proposed alternative metrics for evaluating scholarly productivity (e.g., Maguire and Allen 2015;Wilder et al 2015), and we concur with them that details of faculty productivity rankings will vary as a function of the specific metrics employed. 2 We are nearly as certain, however, that any credible metric will lead to replication of our main findings, that most ABA faculty do not publish much.…”

“…Only upon accepting this discouraging (to us, at least) truth about the research productivity of those most responsible for disseminating our field's knowledge to its next generation, we can move on to the corollary issuedoes the research productivity of ABA faculty really matter in practitioner training. Several commentators (e.g., Detrich 2015;Maguire and Allen 2015) suggested that low faculty research productivity does not necessarily signal that a training program is inferior. This is a point worthy of debate, and it can only be good for our field to evaluate how specific training experiences impact professional competency.…”

Exploring the validity of university‐based practicum tailored to develop expertise in addressing challenging behavior

“…The intention was for these experiences to serve as touchstones for students which allowed them to connect data points on a graph to lived experience, ideally making them more discerning and critical consumers of research and capacitating them to conduct unique research to resolve problems in their own practice (cf. Critchfield, 2015; Dorsey & Harper, 2018; Maguire & Allen, 2015).…”

“…Ideally, these efforts are accompanied by valid measurement systems capable of facilitating data‐informed programmatic evolutions. However, specific methods of evaluation have yet to be agreed upon (e.g., Ahearn et al, 2015; Carr & Nosik, 2015; Detrich, 2015; Dixon et al, 2015a, b; Hayes, 2015; Hineline, 2015; Iwata, 2015; Maguire & Allen, 2015; Pritchard & Wine, 2015; Reeve, 2015; Wilczynski, 2015; Wilder et al, 2015).…”