Treatment integrity is the extent to which procedures are implemented in a manner consistent with their prescribed protocols and is necessary for reaching accurate conclusions regarding functional relations between dependent (i.e., behavior) and independent (i.e., the environment) variables. Several studies assessing the frequency that studies report treatment integrity have been conducted. However, no review has included articles from Behavior Analysis in Practice. Thus, the current study reviewed Behavior Analysis in Practice between 2008 and 2019 to assess the frequency of studies reporting treatment integrity data. A total of 193 articles consisting of 205 studies met the inclusionary criteria for this review. Ninety-six studies (46.83%) reported treatment integrity data, compared to 193 (94.15%) that provided interobserver agreement data. Additionally, 98 studies (47.80%) were considered high risk for treatment implementation inaccuracies. Recommendations and implications for research and practice are discussed.

The current study evaluated the effectiveness of a go/no‐go successive matching‐to‐sample procedure (S‐MTS) to establish auditory–visual equivalence classes with college students. A sample and a comparison were presented, one at a time, in the same location. During training, after an auditory stimulus was presented, a green box appeared in the center of the screen for participants to touch to produce the comparison. Touching the visual comparison that was related to the auditory sample (e.g., A1B1) produced points, while touching or refraining from touching an unrelated comparison (e.g., A1B2) produced no consequences. Following AB/AC training, participants were tested on untrained relations (i.e., BA/CA and BC/CB), as well as tacting and sorting. During BA/CA relations tests, after touching the visual sample, the auditory stimulus was presented along with a white box for participants to respond. During BC/CB relations tests, after touching the visual sample, a visual comparison appeared. Across 2 experiments, all participants met emergence criterion for untrained relations and for sorting. Additionally, 14 out of 24 participants tacted all visual stimuli correctly. Results suggest the auditory–visual S‐MTS procedure is an effective alternative to simultaneous MTS for establishing conditional relations and auditory‐visual equivalence classes.

No abstract

No abstract