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

Abstract

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.

Revisiting the social validity of services rendered through a university‐based practicum addressing challenging behavior

“…The coordinator was instructed to develop an instrument capable of exposing potential weaknesses of the BAC model (cf. Halle, 2019) and of qualifying positive appraisals reflected in Lambert, Paranczak et al (2022) and Lambert, Copeland et al (2022).…”

“…As a case in point, the BAC (not an acronym, pronounced B‐A‐C) was a university‐based intensive practicum designed to imbue in masters‐ and doctoral‐level interns critical competencies associated with the assessment and treatment of challenging behavior (see Lambert, Paranczak et al, 2022). Its mission was threefold (i.e., service, training, research) and entailed providing community members with no‐cost access to intensive intervention for challenging behavior during 3‐month consultations which entailed 48 hours of direct client contact distributed across 12 weeks (see Lambert, Copeland et al, 2022).…”

“…This paper represents the third of a three‐part series and is intended to assess the social validity of the BAC treatment model. Specifically, Lambert, Paranczak et al (2022) described a retrospective consecutive case series spanning 6 years (i.e., 2014‐2019), focusing on data from past interns (i.e., direct beneficiaries of the BAC's training mission and indirect beneficiaries of its research mission). Similarly, Lambert, Copeland et al (2022) described a retrospective controlled consecutive case series (Hagopian, 2020) focusing on client outcome data and the extent to which these data reflected achievement of the BAC's service mission (i.e., conceptual clarity, response elimination, EO tolerance, and generalization).…”

“…Given this reality, a notable omission from Lambert, Paranczak et al (2022) and Lambert, Copeland et al (2022) was a comprehensive accounting of perspectives and opinions of stakeholders involved in the original referrals of BAC clients. This omission is noteworthy because the impact of Lambert, Paranczak et al and Lambert, Copeland et al cannot be established without feedback from the individuals who initially sought help.…”

“…Thus, the purpose of this data‐informed discussion paper was (1) to describe stakeholder knowledge of the BAC's goals, methods, and outcomes, (2) to use stakeholder perspectives to contextualize and frame the method and outcomes of Lambert, Paranczak et al (2022) and Lambert, Copeland et al (2022), and (3) to identify, expose, and shore up the BAC model's weaknesses (cf. Halle, 2019; Schwartz & Baer, 1991).…”