|
|
| TBA Poster Session |
| Tuesday, November 14, 2017 |
| 5:30 PM–7:00 PM |
| Studio GHIJ; Niveau 2 |
|
|
| 52. Assessment of the Behavior Technician Training Program |
| Area: TBA; Domain: Service Delivery |
| KESER LAURENT (BA-eService), Alexandra Lecestre (BA-eService) |
| Abstract: The behavior technicians who works with persons with autism are the personnel in the front line during intervention sessions in the Home-Based programs. The behavior technician must have a minimum theoretical knowledge for a good understanding of the program written by the behavior analyst-supervisor, he must have the capacity to record the data correctly with a great accuracy for a good analysis of the results, he must have fluency in the necessary skills for the application of the programs and he must give maximum opportunities of learning for the person during his/her sessions. The quality of their trainings is one of the keys for an efficient application of programs developed by the behavior analyst-supervisor. We have created the Behavior Technician Training Program (BTTP) to train our staff. We used the BTTP with two new technicians without any prior training. The results show that the two technicians met the criterions before the 150 hours of the program. |
| |
|
|
| 54. Teaching the Generalized Skill of Producing Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) Reversal Graphs in Excel 2016: A Comparison of Prompt Fading and Forward Chaining |
| Area: TBA; Domain: Basic Research |
| BARBARA METZGER (Troy University), Tim Naher (Troy University), Emily Lisbeth Watts (Troy University) |
| Abstract: Graphing is one of the skills a behavior analyst should posses. In the last decade, research has shown that a task analysis is an effective tool to teach graphing. However, it is unknown if a task analysis alone engenders generalization of the skill; that is, producing a novel graph. This study examined three different techniques to promote generalization: (a) no explicit teaching of generalization, (b) forward chaining, and (c) prompt fading. After each experiment, we gave participants a novel data set and tested for generalization. All graphs were scored by independent evaluators according to a grading rubric for efficacy. |
| |
| |