Treatment Integrity Reporting in Behavior Analysis in Practice 2008–2019

Abstract

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.

Strengthening the procedural fidelity research‐to‐practice loop in animal behavior

“…The extant literature on procedural fidelity and intervention outcomes is primarily comprised of studies conducted with humans. Although there are several scholarly reviews on measurement and the effects of procedural fidelity on intervention outcomes, none of the reviews explicitly relate these findings to animal behavior research and training (Brand et al, 2019 for effects of reduced fidelity; Collier‐Meek, Sanetti, & Fallon, 2021 for measurement; Falakfarsa et al, 2021 for reporting). Nevertheless, the behavioral principles and procedures described in these reviews of research with humans are applicable across species and practices.…”

“…Whereas there have been multiple studies investigating the extent to which researchers collect and report procedural‐fidelity data on human interventions (e.g., Falakfarsa et al, 2021; McIntyre et al, 2007; Peterson et al, 1982), there is only one review which examined additional measures of procedural fidelity like the data‐collection method (Collier‐Meek et al, 2018). Future reviews should describe not only if authors of behavior‐analytic literature are collecting and reporting procedural fidelity data but how these data are collected and computed.…”

Strengthening the research–practice loop in applied animal behavior: Introduction to the special issue

“…To ensure internal validity in research experiments and promote treatment adherence in practice, behavior analysts must measure procedural fidelity, or the extent to which procedures are implemented as designed. While procedural fidelity has been increasingly investigated and discussed in the behavioral analysis literature over the past several decades (e.g., DiGenarro Reed & Codding, 2014 ; Falakfarsa et al, 2022 ; Fallon et al, 2020 ), the topic has received little attention in applied animal behavior research and practice. Kodak et al (this issue) review the behavior‐analytic procedural fidelity literature, including basic and applied studies with human participants, and draw clear connections to applied animal behavior research and practice.…”

On a persisting curious double standard in behavior analysis: Behavioral scholars' perspectives on procedural fidelity

“…To date, Peterson et al (1982) have been cited nearly 300 times, but many modern behavior analysts have not heeded their warning. Most behavior‐analytic studies published 40 years after Peterson et al still do not include measures of the fidelity of the independent variable (see Falakfarsa et al, 2022 for a review). This omission of fidelity data differentiates behavior analysis from some of our related sciences (e.g., educational research, school psychology).…”