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

A Practitioner's Guide to Measuring Procedural Fidelity

Ensuring high levels of procedural fidelity during behavior-analytic interventions is a crucial component of providing effective behavior-analytic services. However, few resources are available to help guide practitioners through measuring procedural fidelity. In fact, most published behavior-analytic research on procedural fidelity analyzes a single treatment procedure, which might not completely reflect the process of monitoring and addressing the procedural fidelity of a robust treatment package that might be necessary in clinical settings. The purpose of this article is to guide behavior analysts through the process of creating and using procedural fidelity measurement systems, with a focus on direct observation of implementation as a means of fidelity data collection. This process consists of six steps: (1) task analyze treatment procedures into measurable units; (2) assign measures to each treatment component; (3) plan the direct observation; (4) collect procedural fidelity data; (5) analyze and interpret procedural fidelity data; and (6) take action to improve procedural fidelity. Each step is described and discussed in the article.

A detailed examination of reporting procedural fidelity in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis

Few reviews on procedural fidelity-the degree to which procedures are implemented as designed-provide details to gauge the quality of fidelity reporting in behavior-analytic research. This review focused on experiments in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (2006-2021) with "integrity" or "fidelity" in the abstract or body. When fidelity data were collected, the coders characterized measurement details (e.g., description of calculation, report of single or multiple values, frequency of fidelity checks, checklist use). The researchers found increasing trends in describing the calculation(s), reporting multiple values, and stating the frequency of measurement. Few studies described using a checklist. Most studies reported fidelity as a percentage, with high obtained values (M = 97%). When not collecting fidelity data was stated as a limitation, authors were unlikely to provide a rationale for the omission. We discuss recommendations for reporting procedural fidelity to increase the quality of and transparency in behavior-analytic research.

Peter CC, Feng J, Long BP. Trends in Reporting Procedural Integrity: A Comparison

Procedural integrity refers to the extent to which an independent variable is implemented as described. Measuring procedural integrity is one important factor when considering internal and external validity of experiments. Experimental articles in behavior-analytic journals have rarely reported procedural-integrity data. The purpose of this study was to update previous reviews of whether articles published in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis reported procedural integrity, spanning a period from 1980 to 2020, and compare reporting in JABA to recent reviews of studies published in Behavior Analysis in Practice (2008-2019) and the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management (2000-2020). Procedural integrity continues to be underreported across all three journals, but an increasing trend in reporting procedural integrity is evident in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis and Behavior Analysis in Practice. In addition to our recommendations and implications for research and practice, we provide examples and resources to assist researchers and practitioners with recording and reporting integrity data.

Comparing Multiple Methods to Measure Procedural Fidelity of Discrete-trial Instruction

Procedural fidelity is the extent to which an intervention is implemented as designed and is an important component of research and practice. There are multiple ways to measure procedural fidelity, and few studies have explored how procedural fidelity varies based on the method of measurement. The current study compared adherence to discrete-trial instruction protocols by behavior technicians with a child with autism when observers used different procedural-fidelity measures. We collected individual-component and individual-trial fidelity with an occurrence-nonoccurrence data sheet and compared these scores to global fidelity and all-or-nothing, 3-point Likert scale, and 5-point Likert scale measurement methods. The all-or-nothing method required all instances of a component or trial be implemented without error to be scored correct. The Likert scales used a rating system to score components and trials. At the component level, we found that the global, 3-point Likert, and 5-point Likert methods were likely to overestimate fidelity and mask component errors, and the all-or-nothing method was unlikely to mask errors. At the trial level, we found that the global and 5-point Likert methods approximated individual-trial fidelity, the 3-point Likert method overestimated fidelity, and the all-or-nothing method underestimated fidelity. The occurrence-nonoccurrence method required the most time to complete, and all-or-nothing by trial required the least. We discuss the implications of measuring procedural fidelity with different methods of measurement, including false positives and false negatives, and provide suggestions for practice and research.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43494-023-00094-w.