ArticleBehavior analysis in practice2025
Testing the Teach-Back Method with Instructional Staff to Increase Procedural Fidelity of Instruction for Children with Disabilities.
Article in Behavior analysis in practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated the effects of the teach-back method for training instructional staff to conduct a multiple stimulus without replacement (MSWO) preference assessment. The teach-back method was applied with three instructional staff participants in a center-based program where ABA-based services were provided. A single-subject nonconcurrent multiple probe across participants experimental design was used to assess procedural fidelity. A social validity measure was also used to assess participants' perception of the teach-back method. Results demonstrated that all participants' procedural fidelity improved following teach-back instruction, with one participant requiring additional feedback. Follow-up data were collected on average 8.5 weeks (range 36-74 days) after their last observation with 87.9% fidelity across participants (range 73.6-100%). Social validity measures indicated that instructional staff found the teach-back method acceptable, feasible, and appropriate for learning how to conduct the preference assessment. Overall, findings suggest that the teach-back method may be a viable alternative to traditional training methods in ABA, warranting further investigation into its applicability and potential modifications for enhanced effectiveness. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40617-025-01042-3.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.