Using This Article Explained for Students (Easy Guide)

This question focuses on applying theory to practical scenarios.

What This Question Is About

This question relates to using this article and requires a structured academic response.

How to Approach This Question

Focus on explaining concepts clearly and supporting them with examples.

Key Explanation

This topic involves using this article. A strong answer should include explanation, application, and examples.

Original Question

Using this article: Parker, A. N., Sidener, T. M., DeBar, R. M., Reeve, S. A., & Reeve, K. F. (2022). Identifying and training skill acquisition protocol development: A preliminary investigation. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 16(2), 475-489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-022-00726-4 describe the results, and general findings and implications in short infromative paragrph form: Figure 1 shows individual participant and mean group scores on percentage of protocol steps correctly completed. During the pretest, control and treatment group means were comparably low (44% [range: 21%-60%] and 46% [range: 20%-71%], respectively). Following training with the pdf manual, the control group mean increased to 59% (range: 35%-81%), a mean increase of 16%. Following training with the computer-based tutorial, the treatment group mean increased to 87% (range: 76%-91%), a mean increase of 40%. Individual score data points for this group clustered, indicating consistent posttest performance. Mean difference scores were compared for control and treatment groups using an independent groups t-test. Difference scores were significantly higher for the treatment group, t(12) = (3.27, p < 0.003) (one-tailed). Participant duration on study tasks varied slightly across groups, with control group participants spending more time on both writing and self-paced training. During pretest, treatment group participants spent an average of 64 min (range: 47-81 min) writing their protocols, whereas control group participants took an average of 78 min (range: 58-90 min). During the training phase, treatment group participants spent an average of 119 min (range: 70-175 min) completing self-paced training, whereas control group participants took an average of 136 min (range: 68-140 min). During posttest, treatment group participants spent an average of 68 min (range: 60-88 min) writing their protocols, whereas control group participants took an average of 78 min (range: 42-90 min). Quiz scores for treatment group participants averaged 95% (range: 87%-100%). Responses to the social validity of goals survey are displayed in Table 3. Eighty percent of respondents disagreed when asked whether writing research-based acquisition goals is a skill in which behavior technicians and new BCBAs are well-versed. All respondents indicated that trainings on this skill are not widely available, that this is an important skill for technicians an BCBAs, and that they would consider using a quality computer-based training to teach this skill. One respondent commented, "Although resources and some manuals include information on the procedures or 'should dos' of creating protocols, I am not aware of a training manual related to creating full protocols, and this is an area the field should address." Table 4 shows the results of surveys used to assess social validity of procedures across all participants. Mean scores for each question across control and treatment groups is displayed. Both groups agreed that the content of the trainings were at an appropriate difficulty level, that the training was applicable to their work, and that they felt confident in writing protocols following the training. All participants in the treatment group agreed that they enjoyed the format of the tutorial and that it was preferable to other training formats, whereas control group participants did not agree with these questions. Survey results for social validity outcomes are displayed in Table 5. Respondents scored all five protocols favorably, indicating that they included all important components important to teaching the skill and that procedures could be easily implemented. Respondents also agreed that the protocols were high quality and would be acceptable in their practice. To our knowledge, there are no existing investigations on packages designed to explicitly teach ABA providers to create skill acquisition protocols from scratch with only minimal resources available. Many providers likely rely on curricula or templates for client programs; however, the related protocols may not meet employer or funder expectations, or may not be guided by current research. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a computer-based tutorial on teaching skills related to writing an individualized acquisition protocol based on a research article. The tutorial resulted in a significant increase in accuracy of protocols during posttest when compared to a textual training manual. This study contributes to the literature by applying CBI training procedures to a complex skill, as well as evaluating training in the absence of a trainer (Marano et al., 2020). Although the BACB (2022a) identifies writing protocols as a primary job responsibility of ABA providers, no clear guidelines on this skill exist in the literature or guiding textbooks. Such a skill is important because it ensures that practitioners write protocols that are individualized and based on current skill acquisition research. CBI training on this skill is particularly helpful in a growing, high-demand field in which the qualified trainers are unable to meet training needs (Zhang & Cummings, 2019). This tutorial was completed by all participants in under 2 hr, without a trainer present, and was rated as a favorable format by participants. In addition, training was more efficient for the intervention group, whose participants spent less overall time completing training than participants in the control group. In developing this research question, the authors found that a multitude of resources and literature exists on the contents of behavior plans focused primarily on behavior reduction. Although the content did not translate well to skill acquisition, this line of research informed our methods, and warrant a comprehensive evaluation of their own. Future research should focus on a review of the literature evaluating and advising on behavior plan content, as well as a comparison of contents across types of documentation used in the field. This training was based upon a sample of protocols submitted by experts in the field, and participants were taught to include specific components, and details on those components were taught based on the provided samples. Due to this design, posttests produced similar protocols with variations in detail, but similar content. Future research may focus on analyzing protocols across a wider population of individuals and include multiple exemplar training to promote generalized responding. Providers may have varied expectations as to the content of protocols, and it is important that providers can write protocols in varied ways, while still including critical implementation details. For example, our participants were taught to outline components first, resulting in similar ordering of component sections, whereas expert samples varied in terms of the order in which they appeared. Wording also varied across expert samples, for example, teaching targets were sometimes called "stimuli" or "teaching sets." In addition, although prerequisites did not appear across two or more of our expert samples, it did appear on at least one, indicating that some employers may expect clinicians to demonstrate generalized responding with components included on protocols. Development of the tutorial required training in the software, quizzing features, and hosting requirements. In total, learning and developing the tutorial took roughly 40 hr. The time and training requirements of developing these training materials may be considered a limitation; however, these materials can continue to be administered to ongoing cohorts of trainees in the absence of the trainer. We conducted a return-on-investment analysis as in Walker and Seller's (2021) article on computer-based training. The purpose of such an analysis is to demonstrate how initial cost of developing a CBI training compares to ongoing trainings that require the presence of a paid trainer. To do so, the initial investment is calculated, and diminishes for each time the training is used, typically at a lower operating cost than that of an in-person trainer. The investigators spent 40 hr in total developing the tutorial, including learning the software, developing content, and corresponding with colleagues to facilitate hosting it on Blackboard. Costs of training development is estimated at $1,680. This cost was calculated by multiplying the average hourly wage of an eLearning Developer (Glassdoor, 2022) by 40 hr spent on development. Operating costs calculated for in-person trainings of a similar duration was then compared to development cost to determine how many trainings, per number of employees, would be needed to break even, not including training space overhead or materials (Figure 2). If eight employees participated in training at a time, it would surpass the cost of tutorial development after a single training. If only one employee was trained at a time, the tutorial development cost would be surpassed after 12 trainings. This indicates that the tutorial is likely a cost-effective staff training method for most organizations.

******CLICK ORDER NOW BELOW AND OUR WRITERS WILL WRITE AN ANSWER TO THIS ASSIGNMENT OR ANY OTHER ASSIGNMENT, DISCUSSION, ESSAY, HOMEWORK OR QUESTION YOU MAY HAVE. OUR PAPERS ARE PLAGIARISM FREE*******."