Using a Self-Instructional Package to Train Groups to Implement Reinforcement Strategies

Luna, Odessa; Nuhu, Nadratu; Palmier, Jessica; Brestan-Knight, Elizabeth; Rapp, John T.

doi:10.1007/s10864-018-09319-0

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Self‐instructional packages resulted in participants meeting a pre‐determined mastery criterion for training most participants to conduct SPAs (Al‐Nasser et al, 2019; Graff & Karsten, 2012; Hansard & Kazemi, 2018); DTI (Al‐Nasser et al, 2019; Arnal et al, 2007; Salem et al, 2009; Thomson et al, 2012; Wightman et al, 2012; Young et al, 2012); graph creation (Berkman et al, 2019; Tyner & Fienup, 2016); a mirror protocol (Du et al, 2016); and reinforcement procedures (Luna et al, 2019).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of the literature on staff training strategies that minimize trainer involvement

Marano

Vladescu

Reeve

et al. 2020

Behavioral Interventions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Asynchronous training procedures, which do not require the simultaneous presence of a trainer and trainee, may offer benefits over synchronous training because they may be more efficient, cost-effective, and easier to disseminate. Additionally, asynchronous training may address low trainer to staff ratios. The purpose of this literature review was to identify studies that used asynchronous training procedures to teach any skill related to job performance. A total of 54 articles (containing 58 experiments) were identified for inclusion. The asynchronous staff training techniques identified included video models, computer-based instruction,

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of the literature on staff training strategies that minimize trainer involvement

Marano

Vladescu

Reeve

et al. 2020

Behavioral Interventions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As such, researchers were concerned that driving-up the rate of instruction could pose a safety concern for staff members and residents. Moreover, learning correct instructional delivery (i.e., providing clear and concise directives, remaining in close proximity, and using a prescribed prompting sequence) involves more components than does learning to deliver praise (Luna et al, 2019). To that end, extant literature suggests praise delivery can decrease levels of disruptive behavior for at-risk youth (Downs et al, 2019; Eaves et al, 2020; Wills et al, 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although BST has been widely used for increasing change-agent integrity with behavior-analytic assessments, skill acquisition procedures, and behavioral reduction programming (DiGennaro Reed et al, 2018; Leaf et al, 2019), it is a resource-intensive package that administrators in some settings may not be able to adopt. An alternative way to maximize resources in a low-resourced environment may be to use antecedent-based group training (Deliperi et al, 2015; Luna et al, 2019; Neef et al, 1991; Spiegel et al, 2016; Vladescu et al, 2012; Weldy et al, 2014). Despite advancements in creating effective antecedent-based training packages, behavior-analytic research is almost exclusively conducted in schools, clinics, and homes with a homogenous sample of participants when implementing prescribed procedures for children with disabilities (Leaf et al, 2019; Love et al, 2009).…”

Section: Study 2: Using Antecedent-based Training To Train Staff Membersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Increasing Praise Delivery Within Dorms of a Juvenile Justice Facility

Luna

Rapp

2020

Behav Modif

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Researchers have shown that adolescents in residential treatment facilities benefit from behavior-analytic intervention. However, it remains unclear whether practitioners can apply behavioral interventions to increase staff members’ appropriate interactions with residents within a juvenile justice facility. In Study 1, researchers compared direct measures of staff behavior in three target dorms (D1, D2, and D3) containing high levels of resident disruptive behavior to a dorm (D4) with consistently low levels of resident disruptive behavior. Results indicated that staff members in the target dorms engaged in significantly higher rates of reprimands and negative statements than in D4. In Study 2, researchers used didactic and video instruction to train staff members in D1, D2, and D3 to increase contingent and noncontingent praise delivery. Results indicated praise delivery by staff members increased slightly in each target dorm. In Study 3, researchers first evaluated the extent to which measures of staff members’ and residents’ behaviors improved following training within each dorm. Subsequently, researchers compared the post-training behavioral measures from D1, D2 and D3 to D4 to determine the extent to which staff behavior in the training dorms was distinguishable from D4. Results of Study 3 indicated that one or more staff behaviors improved in each training dorm. Nevertheless, residents’ disruptive behavior was unchanged in each target dorm. In addition, staff members’ behavior in each target dorm continued to be distinguishable from staff members’ behavior in D4 on most behavioral measures.

show abstract

“…Therefore, we were unable to code this variable for those studies as it was unknown how many participants were in each category. Further, an additional five studies (Luna et al, 2019;Maffei-Almodovar, 2019;May et al, 2011;Wandler, 2015;Weldy et al, 2014) included only adult participants without disabilities (e.g., teachers, therapists, staff members); thus, we were unable to code participant age for these studies.…”

Section: Participant Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nonconcurrent Multiple-Baseline and Multiple-Probe Designs in Special Education: A Systematic Review of Current Practice and Future Directions

Morin

Lindström

Kratochwill

et al. 2023

Exceptional Children

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although quality guidelines for single-case intervention research emphasize the importance of concurrent baselines in multiple-baseline and multiple-probe designs, nonconcurrent variations on these designs persist in the research literature. This study describes a systematic review of special education intervention studies ( k = 406) between 1988 and 2020 that report using nonconcurrent multiple-baseline or multiple-probe designs to test interventions for individuals with disabilities ages 21 years and younger. We coded and synthesized study characteristics pertaining to participants, settings, interventions, data reporting, and contextual factors. Findings indicate the prevalence of nonconcurrent designs for intervention studies in a variety of settings addressing social and communication needs of individuals with disabilities. We discuss implications for research and practice and offer suggestions for improving the validity of nonconcurrent designs. A PRISMA-compliant abstract is available at https://osf.io/sdnj5/?view_only=f386b1fe5f14430a8d63fceed293718d .

show abstract

Using a Self-Instructional Package to Train Groups to Implement Reinforcement Strategies

Cited by 6 publications

References 36 publications

A review of the literature on staff training strategies that minimize trainer involvement

A review of the literature on staff training strategies that minimize trainer involvement

Increasing Praise Delivery Within Dorms of a Juvenile Justice Facility

Nonconcurrent Multiple-Baseline and Multiple-Probe Designs in Special Education: A Systematic Review of Current Practice and Future Directions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About