Research Rankings of Behavior Analytic Graduate Training Programs and Their Faculty

Abstract

We evaluated research productivity of several graduate programs that provide Behavior Analyst Certification Board (BACB)-approved course sequences in behavior analysis. Considering the faculty of BACB training programs as a unit, in only about 50 %, programs have faculty combined to publish ten or more total articles in our field's primary empirical journals. Among individual faculty members, a sizeable number have not published an article in any of the field's top journals. To recognize major scholarly contributors, we provide top 10 lists of training programs and individual faculty members. We conclude by discussing the importance of research in an increasingly practice-driven marketplace.

An Alternative Measure of Research Productivity Among Behavior Analytic Graduate Training Programs: a Response to Dixon et al. (2015)

“…Although we agree with Dixon et al (2015) that measuring the research productivity of graduate training programs in ABA is useful, particularly for prospective graduate students and other consumers (e.g., employers), our data suggest that productivity can be measured in many ways. As a field, we first need to establish which data are most meaningful to consumers and then routinely collect and report these data in our professional journals.…”

“…The most productive programs, of the 74 analyzed by Dixon et al (2015), are listed in Table 1. The mean rate of citations per year for articles published in our target journals during our target time frame for each of the top 10 programs is listed in Table 2.…”

“…As with Dixon et al (2015), this analysis includes a number of limitations. First, because only empirical studies were counted, the results may underestimate the productivity of some of the programs listed.…”

“…Finally, because some researchers may have moved to another program between 2000 and 2014, it is possible that some programs may have been given credit for authors who no longer work there. Due to these limitations, the current report, along with the results of Dixon et al (2015) should be seen as one way of analyzing the research productivity of applied behavior analytic training programs. Other methods of analysis will undoubtedly yield other outcomes.…”

There’s a Man Goin’ Round Taking Names

“…

Abstract This commentary addresses the two basic premises of the argument made by Dixon et al (2015) concerning quality metrics for behavior analytic graduate training programs. Taken together, these premises assert that the practice of behavior analysis will be more effective if practitioners are research savvy and that becoming research savvy is more likely to occur in a circumstance in which research is ongoing.

…”