Advertisement

Criterion-Referenced, Competency-Based Training in Behavior Modification

  • Richard H. Hirschenberger
  • Patricia S. McGuire
  • Don R. Thomas

Overview

The field of behavior modification relies on the use of both professionals and paraprofessionals for the delivery of treatment. The competence of the people involved in the delivery of treatment is an essential element in ensuring high-quality and effective services. The need for both initial training and ongoing in-service training is and will continue to be a critical factor in assuring that the services provided in a behavioral program are of the highest quality.

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the development of a competency-based, criterion-referenced assessment and training program. The assessment and training materials were developed to meet the needs of practicing professionals and paraprofessionals. An overview of the competency-based, criterion-referenced training system will be provided. The process that was used in identifying, verifying, and operationalizing specific behavioral competencies as well as information regarding the methods of assessment and training will be presented. Problems and issues in verifying the effectiveness of training will be discussed, and future directions for continued development will be outlined.

Keywords

Behavior Modification Criterion Item Training Material Behavior Analyst Simulation Exercise 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Griffith, R. G. (1980). An administrative perspective on guidelines for behavior modification: The creation of legally safe environment. The Behavior Therapist, 3, 5–6.Google Scholar
  2. Jackson, A. T., & Thomas, D. R. (1974). Rationale fora career ladder of job classifications in Minnesota Civil Service for behavior analysts. Brainerd, MN: Minnesota Learning Center, Minnesota Department of Human Services.Google Scholar
  3. Mager, R. F., & Pipe, P. (1970). Analyzing performance problems or you really oughta wanna. Belmont: Fearon Pitman Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Naumann, C., Maus, M., & Thomas, D. R. (1982). An analysis of guidlines controlling the use of locked room timeout. Behavioral Engineering, 8, 77–89.Google Scholar
  5. Parry, J., Rapoport, D., Dooley, J., Lampson, M., Tao, L., Spruell, W., Byrd, I., & Taylor, J. (1984). Mental disability law, a primer. Washington, DC: American Bar Association.Google Scholar
  6. Pollack, M. (1981). Guidelines for the use of behavioral procedures: A review of state and local standards and recommended strategies. Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy: Toronto.Google Scholar
  7. Stolz, S. B., Wienckowski, L. A., & Brown, B. (1975). Behavior modification, a perspective on critical issues. American Psychologist, 30, 11, 1027–1048.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Sulzer-Azaroff, B., Thaw, J., & Thomas, C. (1975). Behavioral competencies for the evaluation of behavior modifiers. In W. Scott Wood (Ed.), Issues in evaluating behavior modification (pp. 47–98 ). Champaign, IL: Research Press.Google Scholar
  9. Thomas, D. R., McAllister, L., & Thompson, T. (1976). Minnesota guidelines for aversive and deprivation programs. Chicago: Midwestern Association for Behavior Analysis.Google Scholar
  10. Welch v. Likins, 373 F. Supp. 487 (M.D. Minn. 1974 ).Google Scholar
  11. Welch v. Noot, United States District Court, District of Minnesota, Fourth Division. No. 4–72 Civil. 451 (1980).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard H. Hirschenberger
    • 1
  • Patricia S. McGuire
    • 1
  • Don R. Thomas
    • 1
  1. 1.Brainerd Regional Human Services CenterBrainerdUSA

Personalised recommendations