| Popis: |
Treatment integrity (TI) refers to the extent to which the independent variable (e.g. treatment) has been implemented as intended and is concerned with both the accuracy and consistency of implementation. Without high TI, obtained results are ambiguous and not easily interpretable, and low integrity may result in poor outcomes for students. The existing literature suggests that teachers often fail to implement interventions with high integrity despite having received intensive training. However, it is unclear whether level of experience plays a role in the amount and types of TI errors made. The present study examined a) whether the types and number of TI errors differ depending on staffs level of experience, b) whether errors in specific components (e.g. reinforcement or prompting) are related to a lack of understanding of those components, and c) whether the number of errors made on a TI quiz are related to level of experience. Forty-two expert staff and 28 novice staff working at a university-based school specializing in applied behavior analysis for individuals with autism spectrum disorder participated in the study. Each participant was observed during a discrete trial instruction (DTI) session with a student and their TI on several components was coded. Participants then completed a brief quiz containing procedural and theoretical questions related to each TI component as well as a survey about their level of experience. The results of the current study indicated that there was no significant difference in the number of TI errors made between groups; however, novice staff made a significantly greater number of errors on implementing controlling prompts than experienced staff. Individuals who made a greater number of TI errors also tended to make a greater number of errors on the quiz, but there were no significant correlations between individual quiz and TI components. Finally, results indicated that the novice group made significantly more errors on both procedural and theoretical quiz questions when compared to the experienced group. Implications for training staff are discussed. |
