↓ Skip to main content

Evidence-Based Staff Training: A Guide for Practitioners

Overview of attention for article published in Behavior Analysis in Practice, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#14 of 637)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
twitter
16 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
310 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
261 Mendeley
Title
Evidence-Based Staff Training: A Guide for Practitioners
Published in
Behavior Analysis in Practice, June 2017
DOI 10.1007/bf03391819
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marsha B. Parsons, Jeannia H. Rollyson, Dennis H. Reid

Abstract

Behavior analysts in human service agencies are commonly expected to train support staff as one of their job duties. Traditional staff training is usually didactic in nature and generally has not proven particularly effective. We describe an alternative, evidence-based approach for training performance skills to human service staff. The description includes a specific means of conducting a behavioral skills training session with a group of staff followed by on-the-job training requirements. A brief case demonstration then illustrates application of the training approach and its apparent effectiveness for training staff in two distinct skill sets: use of most-to-least prompting within teaching procedures and use of manual signs. Practical issues associated with applying evidence-based behavioral training are presented with a focus on providing training that is effective, efficient, and acceptable to staff trainees.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 261 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
Unknown 259 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 78 30%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 28 11%
Student > Bachelor 16 6%
Other 16 6%
Other 32 12%
Unknown 58 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 127 49%
Social Sciences 36 14%
Business, Management and Accounting 8 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 2%
Arts and Humanities 5 2%
Other 13 5%
Unknown 67 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 51. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 January 2023.
All research outputs
#826,607
of 25,393,071 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Analysis in Practice
#14
of 637 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,047
of 330,594 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Analysis in Practice
#3
of 77 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,393,071 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 637 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,594 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 77 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.