Examining the emphasis on consultation in behavior analyst preparation programs.

Abstract

The role of behavior analysts, specifically those that are board certified and working in schools, is increasingly moving from that of a behavioral technician (i.e., the direct change agent manipulating the environment to promote behavior change in a client) to that of a behavioral consultant (i.e., an indirect change agent enabling a consultee, teacher, or parent to act as the direct change agent for a client). Given that consultation can provide services to a greater number of individuals than traditional direct intervention, training in consultative methods is important to the work of behavior analysts. The current study provides a review of consultation courses offered in behavior analyst preparation programs. We identified 187 programs meeting our inclusion criteria. Across departments, 98 programs were affiliated with education departments, 66 with psychology departments, and 24 with other departments. Of all programs, 26 (13.9%) provided at least 1 consultation course. Implications for behavior analyst preparation programs and for consumers of behavior analysis are discussed.

Towards a Meaningful Analysis of Behavior Analyst Preparation Programs

“…Fourth, the inclusion of a consultation course by a program was associated on average with a 5.52 PP decrease in program pass rates when controlling for other predictors in model 5. Although this negative association aligns with prior descriptive results (Shepley et al, 2017), our current findings failed to reach statistical significance within the models. It should be noted that when entered as a single predictor in a regression analysis, the inclusion of a consultation course approached statistical significance (p ≤ 0.10), potentially indicating that greater power may be needed to detect effects when combined with covariates.…”

“…Variables included in this review were previously coded and defined in a review of BACB® approved programs (Shepley et al, 2017). These variables included behavior analyst preparation programs, 2014 program pass rates, and variables associated with each program (i.e., provision of supervision experience, Association of Behavior Analysis International [ABAI] accreditation, departmental affiliation, course delivery methods, course topics, and number of individuals sitting for the 2014 BCBA® examination).…”

“…Despite uniform requirements that all university programs must meet for BACB® approval, a review of approved course sequences indicated many differences among university programs, including (a) departments affiliation, (b) course delivery methods, (c) additional program accreditations, (d) provision of supervision experience, and (e) ABA-related course topics (Shepley et al, 2017). These differences highlight the current heterogeneity of programs preparing BCBA®s and suggest that different programs may provide graduates with vastly different training experiences.…”

“…Questions regarding examination pass rates are of particular importance given that an individual must pass the exam to become certified; therefore, if certain types of programs are graduating few individuals that can pass the BCBA® exam, there will be fewer behavior analysts to fill the jobs for which those types of programs are training individuals. For example, data indicate that approved course sequences within special education programs are more likely to include explicit instruction on consultation than course sequences within psychology departments (Shepley et al, 2017). If individuals completing course sequences within special education programs are failing to pass the BCBA® exam, then there may be fewer individuals with an understanding of how to provide ABA services through a consultative service delivery model; a needed skill for individuals working in school-based settings.…”

“…or what types of programs produce better behavior analysts? As stressed in a past review, programs should be evaluated per their purpose (i.e., according to the jobs for which programs are preparing future behavior analysts; Shepley et al, 2017). Furthermore, the data in this review do not allow for an examination of causal relations between the predictor and outcome variables; rather, these data provide information on associations between these variables.…”