Training behavior change agents: A conceptual review

BEHAVIOR THERAPY 13, 1-23 (1982)

Training Behavior Change Agents: A Conceptual Review

GAIL S. BERNSTEIN

University of Colorado Health Sciences Center

A functional, ecobehavioral framework is suggested within which research on training can be organized. The framework includes an interactive model of behavioral service delivery that defines the function of and relationships among behavioral consultants, behavioral engineers, behavior managers, and clients. Research on training change agents can be organized around four major questions: (a) What problems must behavior change agents be able to solve? (b) What skills are most likely to lead to solutions to those problems? (c) What techniques should be used to teach those skills? (d) What procedures are most likely to assure generalization of those skills? The answers to these questions may vary systematically in relation to the function of the behavior change agent being studied.

The use of behavioral principles to teach new skills and alleviate human problems has increased at a phenomenal rate in the last two decades, and has led to an equally phenomenal increase in efforts to train individuals to use behavioral approaches. Unfortunately, most behavioral research on effective training procedures is not nearly as sophisticated as behavioral research on other topics (Loeber & Weisman, 1975). The present paper provides a functional, ecobehavioral framework suitable for gen- erating research on training behavior change agents.

Several authors have recently suggested that there is value in the in- tegration of an ecological view of human behavior with the behavior analytic approach (Marston, 1979; Rogers-Warren & Warren, 1977). While an ecological perspective has always been present in behavior analysis, the systematization of that perspective is needed to study it scien- tifically (Gump, 1977). The outcome of such a systematization, which might be termed ecobehavioral analysis, will still be a discipline aimed

Preparation of this paper was partially supported by Grant No. 16-5-56811-5-13 to the Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Mental Retardation, University of Wis- consin-Madison from the Rehabilitation Services Administration of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. I am indebted to the following individuals for their extensive editorial comments: Laura Czajkowski, Eric Rudrud, Jon Ziarnik, Thony Jones, and three anonymous reviewers. Reprint requests should be addressed to Gail S. Bernstein, John F. Kennedy Child Development Center, University of Colorado Health Sciences Cen- ter, 4200 East Ninth Avenue, Box C234. Denver, CO 80262.

1 oo05-7~9,4~fooal-002351 f00/o Copyright 1982 by Association for AdvancemClll-of~ehav~.Therapy

All rights of reproducti#lUn my for~serve&

2 BERNSTEIN

at studying and changing behaviors of individuals (Rogers-Warren & Warren). It will, however, study behavior at levels of complexity here- tofore not typical of behavioral science by examining interdependent systems of persons, behaviors, social environments, and physical environments (Willems, 1977). The present paper represents an initial attempt to examine current knowledge on the training of behavior change agents from an ecobehavioral perspective.

Most research on training has studied how to teach behavior managers and/or how to assure generalization of behavior skills. These are certainly important questions, but they are not the only questions that need to be asked. The development of ecologically valid training programs can only occur if training is examined within a broader perspective.

One means of broadening our perspective is to generate research questions that assume individual behavior occurs within and is affected by ecobehavioral systems of varying size, structure, scope, and complexity. For instance, we might assume that there are four levels of analysis: the individual, the microsystem, the exosystem, and the macrosystem (Ziar- nik, Rudrud, & Bernstein, Note 1). The individual comes to a particular situation with a learning history and biological characteristics which affect his or her behavior. The microsystem refers to the immediate setting in which the individual behaves, while the exosystem is the larger social structure, both formal and informal, and the macrosystem consists of overriding beliefs and values.

Behavioral analyses have typically addressed individuals in relation to certain aspects of the microsystems in which they behave. Suppose we are interested in analyzing and altering the behaviors of staff providing vocational training to developmentally disabled adults. Current research on these staff deals almost entirely with (1) how to teach use of behavior change skills, or (2) how to maintain and/or generalize use of those skills, usually via feedback procedures such as public posting. Neglected issues at the microsystem level include the question of whether the organizational design (Cherniss, 1981) of the microsystem tends to facilitate or inhibit use of behavior change skills. For example, is the staff person who spends large blocks of time successfully teaching work-related social skills to clients punished for not placing more emphasis on client pro- duction?

Aspects of the exosystem such as the legal structure may also affect our vocational trainer. Specifically, suppose the trainer's successful teaching of work skills leads to competitive employment for a client. There are legal limits on income for people receiving social services and Medicare benefits, so that competitive employment often leads to loss of benefits. Many clients who obtain employment and then lose benefits do not succeed at work and return to vocational training programs. We have yet to systematically ask whether this situation affects the behavior of the vocational trainers.

The macrosystem also merits investigation. The prevailing attitude toward mentally retarded persons in a community may be one of fear and

BEHAVIOR CHANGE AGENTS 3

the corresponding behavior avoidance. If so, how members of the community respond to vocational trainers trying to find employment for clients might merit examination.

In general, the rationale for broadening our perspective ecologically is that competing variables in natural ecosystems often account for program failures (Holman, 1977). Identification and manipulation of these variables is therefore a prerequisite for program success.

The second means of broadening our perspective is to design training research that speaks to four major questions: (1) What problems must behavior change agents be able to solve? (2) What skills of behavior change agents are most likely to lead to solutions of common problems? (3) What teaching techniques are most likely to promote acquisition of those skills? and (4) What procedures are most likely to assure generalization of those skills?

Another issue which must also be considered as researchers address these four questions is the possibility that the answers may vary depending on the function of the behavior change agent being studied. The observation that in practice there are several levels of behavioral practitioners with distinct functions is not new. In fact, functional models have been proposed by Gardner (1975), Sulzer-Azaroff, Thaw, and Thomas (1975), and Tharp and Wetzel (1969). For example, Tharp and Wetzel suggested that a triadic model of service provision arises logically from a behavioral approach. Their consultative model shows effects proceed- ing from the consultant to the target via the mediator and describes functional positions, not people, who occupy those positions. The consultant is defined as anyone with knowledge, the mediator is anyone with reinforcers for the target, and the target is anyone whose behavior the consultant agrees to modify.

Applications of behavior procedures in diverse environments have be- come considerably more complex and sophisticated since the triadic model first appeared in print. It therefore seems appropriate to suggest a more complex model which will more accurately describe current approaches to behavioral service delivery. The pure form of this model is shown in Fig. 1.

In this model the client is anyone whose behavior the behavioral engineer agrees to modify; the behavior manager is anyone who implements change procedures; the behavioral engineer is anyone who designs and adjusts change procedures; and the consultant is a troubleshooter and resource provider who assists the behavioral engineer with program design and revision or the behavior manager with program implementation. As in the Tharp and Wetzel (1969) model, these positions describe functions rather than people or professions. It is assumed that clients, managers, engineers, and consultants all rely on a behavior analytic approach to achieving their goals. The model is both interactive and ecological. It is interactive because it assumes client behaviors influence change agent behaviors and that change agents influence each others' behaviors, not necessarily always as intended. It is ecological because all persons rep-

4 BERNSTEIN

' Behavioral ' \ Consultant ~

~Re sTro°uUrb/e s h r°° tv ie~ e r • / /~'\~ j/"/~ / Behavioral / Behavior \ • ( Engineer Manager )

\ "Designer" "Implementer" J

FIG. l. An interactive model of behavioral service delivery.

resented are assumed to affect and be affected by the microsystems, exosystems, and macrosystems in which they behave.

In practice, several variations of this model can occur if one individual serves more than one of the four functions (see Table 1). Variations 1-3, as well as the pure form of the model, are most likely to be found in institutions, schools, community-based residential facilities, workshops, and so forth. Common examples of the model in pure form and variations 1-3 are shown in Table 2. Variations 4, 5, and 6, which involve only two people, are most likely to be found in those situations where the client seeks the services of someone in private practice such as a psychologist, psychiatrist, social worker, or counselor. Additional variations exist in situations where a function is shared by two or more individuals. Behav- ior change programs are often designed by several staff in settings such as schools and vocational training programs. For instance, the consultative model of providing school psychology services (Kratochwill & Ber- gan, 1978) can be viewed as a combination of variations 1 and 2 with the designer function shared by the school psychologist and the teacher.

When recent research on training was examined with this model in mind, it quickly became apparent that most research has dealt with training individuals to function as behavior managers or as behavior manager- behavioral engineer combinations. As seen in Table 3, there has been little empirical investigation of training intended to produce consultations or behavioral engineers who must work through other individuals' functioning as behavior managers. This lack is probably due in part to the difficulties inherent in attempts to identify the effects of consultant behaviors on client outcomes. Consultants typically take no direct responsibility for program implementation and have no authority over those who are responsible for implementation (Caplan, 1970). This state of af- fairs makes identification of proper training for consultants a difficult and complex task. That it is possible, however, is seen in the work of Bergan, Tombari, and their colleagues discussed in later sections (Bergan, Byrnes, & Kratochwill, 1979; Bergan, Kratochwill, & Luiten, 1980; Ber- gan & Tombari, 1976; Tombari & Bergan, 1978).

While more research is available on behavioral engineer skills than on

TA

BL

E

I PO

SSIB

LE

V

AR

IAT

ION

S O

F T

HE

BE

HA

VIO

RA

L S

ER

VIC

E D

EL

IVE

RY

MO

DE

L

The

Mod

el

Var

iati

on l

Var

iati

on 2

Var

iati

on 3

Var

iati

on 4

Var

iati

on 5

Var

iati

on 6

Beh

avio

ral

cons

ulta

nt

Beh

avio

ral

cons

ulta

nt

Beh

avio

ral

engi

neer

]

Beh

avio

ral

cons

ulta

nt

Beh

avio

ral

cons

ulta

nt

<

Beh

avio

ral

cons

ulta

nt

Beh

avio

ral

engi

neer

Beh

avio

r m

anag

er

Beh

avio

ral

cons

ulta

nt

Beh

avio

ral

engi

neer

Beh

avio

ral

cons

ulta

nt

Beh

avio

ral

engi

neer

~

~ B

ehav

ior

man

ager

<

) C

lien

t

• B

ehav

ior

man

ager

~

~ C

lien

t

Beh

avio

ral

engi

neer

Beh

avio

r m

anag

er

~,

> C

lien

t

Beh

avio

ral

engi

neer

~

Cli

ent

Beh

avio

r m

anag

er

Cli

ent

I Beh

avio

r m

anag

er

)

t Cli

ent

i Beh

avio

ral

engi

neer

Beh

avio

r m

anag

er

,Cli

ent

> < > > t~

TA

BL

E 2

E

XA

MPL

ES

OF

TH

E B

EH

AV

IOR

AL

SE

RV

ICE

DE

LIV

ER

Y M

OD

EL

AN

D T

HR

EE

OF

ITS

VA

RIA

TIO

NS

The

Mod

el ~

~

Beh

avio

ral

cons

ulta

nt ~

~

Beh

avio

ral

engi

neer

~

~ B

ehav

ior

man

ager

psyc

hiat

rist

te

am l

eade

r w

ard

staf

f

psyc

holo

gist

re

habi

lita

tion

cou

nsel

or

wor

k fl

oor

supe

rvis

or

scho

ol p

sych

olog

ist

teac

her

teac

her

aide

soci

al w

orke

r pr

ogra

mm

er

grou

p ho

me

pare

nt

Var

iati

on

1 B

ehav

iora

l co

nsul

tant

[

~ ~

Beh

avio

r m

anag

er ~

)

Cli

ent

[ Beh

avio

ra

engi

neer

1

soci

al w

orke

r te

ache

r st

uden

t

indu

stri

al p

sych

olog

ist

man

ager

em

ploy

ees

psyc

holo

gist

m

othe

r ch

ild

, I B

ehav

i°ra

l en

gine

er

I V

aria

tion

2

Beh

avio

ral

cons

ulta

nt ~

] B

ehav

ior

man

ager

(

) C

lien

t

soci

al w

orke

r te

ache

r st

uden

t

psyc

hiat

rist

gr

oup

hom

e st

aff

resi

dent

IBeh

avio

r m

anag

er ]

V

aria

tion

3

Beh

avio

ral

cons

ulta

nt ~

~

Beh

avio

ral

engi

neer

~

) 1 C

lien

t

psyc

holo

gist

te

ache

r st

uden

t

soci

al w

orke

r gr

oup

hom

e st

aff

resi

dent

Cli

ent

pati

ent

empl

oyee

stud

ent

resi

dent

z Z

B E H A V I O R C H A N G E A G E N T S 7

consultant skills, it still constitutes a much smaller body of work than the research on behavior managers. Perhaps difficulties involved in opera- tionally defining and observing program design behaviors are greater than those involved in measuring implementation behaviors, or perhaps behavior managers are more easily found and studied under controlled conditions than behavioral engineers. Regardless of the reasons why behavioral consulting and engineering functions have been neglected by past researchers, it is desirable that future research address the possibility that answers to the four questions given above vary systematically based on the function of the behavior change agent being studied.

Of the four questions raised by this paper, only those regarding teaching procedures and generalization have been extensively studied. The lack of attention to problem and skill identification may be due to as- sumptions that common problems and the skills needed to solve them are already known. However, only systematic, empirical investigations can determine whether the skills typically taught behavior change agents are in fact the skills needed.

In addition, as researchers address these questions it will be necessary for them to seek answers which are socially valid, as well as functional. For any behavior change procedure, the social significance of the goals of the procedure, the procedure itself, and the changes resulting from the procedure can be evaluated (Kazdin, 1977; Wolf, 1978). As Wolf has observed, evaluation of social significance can occur by asking whether the goals of a given program are socially acceptable, whether the procedures used to reach the goals are acceptable to consumers, and whether consumers are satisfied with the results of the program. The relevance of these concerns to research on training is addressed in the discussion which follows.

What Problems Must Behavior Change Agents Be Able to Solve?

Asking what problems behavior managers, behavioral engineers, and behavioral consultants must be able to solve is necessary for several reasons. First, it is logically required by a behavioral approach, since that approach assumes behaviors cannot be studied independent of the situation in which they occur; surely behavior change skills are no ex- ception. A second reason for asking this question is pragmatic: there is little point in teaching people to apply behavioral analysis to problems they will not be called upon to solve, and there is much to be gained from using frequently occurring problems as examples during training.

Furthermore, the empirical determination of problems facing behavior change agents is necessary in order to socially validate the goals of training: that is, behavior change agents should be trained to solve problems they consider important. However, this is only the first step in social validation. Problems which are commonly faced by behavior change agents and which they consider important must then be evaluated for broader social importance by the consumer of change agents' efforts. For instance, one common reason for behavior reduction programs in insti-

TA

BL

E

3

A

CL

ASS

IFIC

AT

ION

OF

RE

CE

NT

RE

SEA

RC

H

ON

BE

HA

VIO

R C

HA

NG

E A

GE

NT

S B

Y F

UN

CT

ION

A

ND

QU

ES

TIO

N

Beh

avio

ral

Beh

avio

ral

cons

ulta

nt/

engi

neer

/ B

ehav

iora

l B

ehav

iora

l B

ehav

iora

l B

ehav

ior

Beh

avio

r co

nsul

tant

en

gine

er

engi

neer

m

anag

er

man

ager

Wha

t pr

oble

ms

mus

t th

ey

solv

e?

Ber

nste

in (

1979

) B

erns

tein

(19

79)

Wha

t sk

iUs

are

need

ed t

o so

lve

thos

e pr

ob-

lem

s?

Sul

zer-

Aza

roff

B

erga

n et

al.

(197

9)

Ber

nste

in (

1979

) B

erns

tein

(19

79)

Sul

zer-

Aza

roff

et

al.

(19

75)

Ber

gan

& T

omba

ri

Sul

zer-

Aza

roff

F

rede

rick

s et

al.

(19

75)

(197

6)

et a

l. (1

975)

et

al.

(19

77)

WiU

ner

et a

l. S

ulze

r-A

zaro

ff

Sul

zer-

Aza

roff

(1

977)

et

al.

097

5)

et a

l. (

1975

) T

omba

ri &

Ber

gan

(197

8)

Wha

t te

ch-

niqu

es s

houl

d be

use

d to

tea

ch t

hose

sk

ills

?

Bur

khar

l et

al.

I 1

976)

H

eife

tz (

1977

) A

dam

s et

al.

(19

80)

Jone

s el

al.

119

77)

Arn

old

et a

l, (

1977

) K

omak

i (1

977)

B

orns

tein

& H

amil

- O

'Del

l et

al.

(19

77)

ton

(197

8)

Sch

inke

(19

79)

Bur

ka &

Jon

es (

1979

) S

chin

ke &

Won

g C

arni

ne &

Fin

k (1

977)

(1

978)

S

tern

& G

olde

n C

lark

& M

acra

e (1

977)

(1

976)

U

pper

et

al.

(197

7)

Dan

cer

et a

l. (

1978

) Z

iarn

ik &

Ber

n-

Dol

eys

et a

l. (1

976)

st

ein

(Not

e 8)

D

owri

ck &

Joh

ns

1197

6)

Duk

er &

Sey

s (1

980)

F

abry

& R

eid

(197

8)

Fle

isch

man

(19

79)

O'D

ell

et a

l. I

1979

) F

oreh

and

& K

ing

O'D

elI,

Kru

g+ P

atte

r-

(197

7)

son,

& F

aust

man

F

oreh

and

et a

l. (

1979

) (1

980)

F

oreh

and

et a

l. (

1980

) O

'Del

I, K

rug,

G

lads

tone

& S

penc

er

O'Q

uin,

&

(197

7)

Kas

netz

(19

80)

Hum

phre

ys e

t al

. P

eed

et a

l. (

1977

) (1

978)

R

eisi

nger

et

al.

(197

6)

Kel

ley

et a

l. (

1979

) S

anso

n-F

ishe

r et

al.

K

oege

l et

al.

(19

78)

(197

6)

Koe

gel

et a

l. (

1977

) S

loat

et

al.

(197

7)

Mac

rae

et a

l. (

1976

) S

peid

el &

Tha

rp

McM

ahon

& F

ore-

(1

978)

ha

nd (

1978

) T

hom

son

et a

l. (1

978)

F

ires

tone

et

al.

(198

0)

Mil

ler

& S

loan

(19

76)

Wil

lner

et

al.

(197

7)

Fla

naga

n et

al+

119

79)

Mon

tega

r et

al.

(19

77)

TA

BL

E3

CO

NT

INU

ED

Beh

avio

ral

cons

ulta

nt

Beh

avio

ral

cons

ulta

nt/

Beh

avio

ral

engi

neer

B

ehav

iora

l en

gine

er

Beh

avio

ral

engi

neer

/ B

ehav

ior

man

ager

B

ehav

ior

man

ager

Wha

t pr

oced

ures

w

ill a

ssur

e ge

nera

liza

tion

of

tho

se s

kill

s?

For

d (1

980)

H

utch

ison

et

al.

(198

0)

Bak

er e

t al

. (1

980)

Jo

nes

et a

l. (

1977

) O

'Del

l et

al.

(19

77)

Pru

e et

al.

(I 9

80)

Sch

inke

(19

79)

Ste

rn &

Gol

den

(197

7)

Ada

ms

et a

l. (

1980

) F

oreh

and

& K

ing

Mil

ler

& S

loan

(19

76)

And

rasi

k &

Mc-

(1

977)

M

onte

gar

et a

l. (

1977

) N

amar

a (1

977)

F

oreh

and

et a

l. (

1979

) O

'Del

I, K

rug,

Pat

ter-

A

ndra

sik

et a

l. (1

978)

F

oreh

and

et a

l. (

1980

) so

n, &

Fau

st-

Arn

old

et a

l. (

1977

) G

lads

tone

& S

penc

er

man

(19

80)

Bur

g et

al.

(19

79)

(197

7)

Pat

ters

on e

t al

. (1

976)

B

urka

& J

ones

(19

79)

Gre

ene

et a

l. (

1978

) P

eed

et a

l. (

1977

) C

arni

ne &

Fin

k H

umph

reys

et

al,

Rei

sing

er e

t al

. (1

976)

(1

978)

(1

978)

S

anso

n-F

ishe

r et

al.

D

oley

s et

al.

(19

76)

Iwat

a et

al.

(19

76)

(197

6)

Duk

er &

Sey

s (1

980)

K

elle

y et

al.

(19

79)

Sey

s &

Duk

er (

1978

) F

abry

& R

eid

(197

8)

Koe

gel

et a

l. (

1978

) S

peid

el &

Tha

rp,

Fir

esto

ne e

t al

. (1

980)

K

oege

l et

al.

(19

77)

(197

8)

Fla

naga

n et

al.

(197

9)

McM

ahon

& F

ore-

T

hom

son

et a

l. (

1978

) ha

nd (

1978

)

< e3

Z

10 BERNSTEIN

tutions is " to alter behavior labeled inappropriate only because it occurs in an institution---e.g., asking to eat dinner at 5:00 instead of 6 : 0 0 . . . " (Repp & Deitz, 1978, p. 45). While institutional staff might consider the maintenance of routines such as fixed mealtimes important, consumers (e.g., residents and their families) might well disagree. That is, procedures valid in one context or setting are not necessarily valid in all contexts or settings. Hence the need to train behavior change agents to solve problems both they and the consumers agree are important.

There is little currently known about types and frequencies of problems behavioral practitioners encounter while designing and implementing behavior change programs, but there are several means of obtaining this information. One possibility is the analysis of client presenting problems (either skill deficits or behavior excesses) in the setting where trainees are employed (Luke, Note 2). A similar approach could be utilized on a larger scale by analyzing epidemiological reports of common presenting problems in the population with which trainees are working.

While information of this sort is necessary, it is not sufficient. Bernstein (1979) interviewed 26 behavioral engineers, many of whom were also functioning as behavior managers, to obtain descriptions of common problems. Of 155 descriptions obtained, 80 involved difficulties encountered in managing behavior managers (e.g., inconsistent program implementation), a clear indication that behavioral engineers need skills not likely to be taught if client present problems are the only basis for training content. Other problems described in that study dealt with relating to microsystems such as administrative structures and exosystems such as neighborhoods, as well as self-management.

Similar studies with behavior managers and behavioral consultants, as well as more extensive work with behavioral engineers, are all needed. Interviews, questionnaires, diaries, and direct observation can all be utilized to collect problem descriptions and frequencies. This author's ex- perience and reports from colleagues indicate that behavior managers face some problems in relating to behavioral engineers and behavioral consultants, while behavioral consultants are likely to encounter difficulties with having engineers and managers implement their suggestions, particularly in settings where the consultant has no supervisory authority.

Any study of problems faced by behavior change agents must address the question of whether solutions to the problems identified are functionally related to changes in client behavior. If we assume that the goal of training behavior change agents of any sort is to produce people who are skilled at changing client behaviors, then the content of training should include only those problem-solving skills which will result in the desired changes in clients.

What Skills o f Behavior Change Agents Are Most Likely to Lead to Solutions of Common Problems?

There are several ways to ask what skills of behavior managers, behavioral engineers, or behavioral consultants are most likely to lead to

B E H A V I O R C H A N G E A G E N T S I 1

solutions of problems faced by individuals functioning in those roles. Techniques which research has shown are effective in changing client behaviors can be chosen (Ford, 1979). Behaviors that exist in the absence of training and are shown to be ineffective can be ruled out (e.g., Mans- dorf, Bucich, & Judd, 1977). These are all useful approaches to identification of solutions to client problems but not sufficient; additional information on solutions to other common problems such as those involving management of behavior managers is also needed.

One means of obtaining this additional information is to ask change agents what they do and/or what problem-solving skills they consider useful (e.g., Sulzer-Azaroff et al., 1975). However, this approach may lead to identification of skills which are either superstitiously or functionally related to effective problem solving. It therefore requires follow- up studies which ask whether identified skills are functionally related to effective change agent behavior.

Another alternative is to use the behavioral-analytic assessment model (Goldfried & D'Zurilla, 1969) to develop means of assessing the competence of behavior change agents. The relevant steps in this model are: situational analysis, which involves collection of descriptions of common problems; response enumeration, which involves collection of possible responses to those problems; and response evaluation, which involves identification of effective responses to the problems. These steps can be accomplished via interview, questionnaire, diary, or direct observation. However, use of any procedure other than direct observation raises the question of whether the descriptions obtained of problems or solutions do in fact reflect actual behavior.

A third approach to identifying functional behavior change skills has been utilized by Fredericks and his colleagues (Fredericks, Anderson, Baldwin, Grove, Moore, Moore, & Beaird, 1977). They measured a wide variety of variables which might be characteristic of competent teachers, and identified two groups of teachers: those whose severely handicapped students made high gains in learning during a school year, and those whose students did not show comparable gains. The variables chosen were then examined to determine which, if any, discriminated between the two groups of teachers. The more successful teachers used more instructional time, more task analyzed programs, and more appropriate consequence delivery than the less successful teachers.

Another investigation which examined the relationships between change agent skills and outcomes has been described by Bergan and Tombari (1976). Their work is based on a model which describes behavioral consultation as a problem-solving process consisting of four steps: problem identification, problem analysis, plan implementation, and problem evaluation (Bergan et al., 1980). Of these four steps, Bergan and Tombari found problem identification the most crucial in relation to achieving problem solutions. Other research generated by the problem- solving model indicates that providing behavioral consultation plus task analysis to teachers leads to more teaching success than behavioral con-

12 BERNSTEIN

sultation alone, medical model consultation, or no consultation (Bergan et al., 1979).

One of the most important contributions made by Bergan and his colleagues (Bergan & Tombari, 1976; Bergan et al., 1979; Bergan et al., 1980; Kratochwill & Bergan, 1978) is their emphasis on the need for consultants to deal competently with existing systems at several levels. Bergan et al. (1980) note that more attention must be directed at consultant verbal behavior so we can determine what verbal behaviors used during interactions with behavior manager/engineers lead to effective intervention plans. Also, Kratochwill and Bergan (1978) observed that consultants must have skills in dealing with systems in order to both determine whether consultees face barriers to effective implementation of intervention plans and deal with unanticipated effects of interventions on existing systems.

It is unlikely that the use of any one of these approaches will provide sufficient information regarding the skills needed by behavior change agents. Sufficient information will probably be obtained by synthesizing the results of a variety of methods, both the results of methods described above and the results of methods based on other models such as that of Kanfer and Saslow (1969). Regardless of the approach, studies aimed at skill identification should attempt to determine whether behavior managers, behavioral engineers, and behavioral consultants need the same or different skills to solve a given type of problem.

Several articles have recently appeared which suggest that behavior change procedures should be not only effective, but also socially acceptable (Braukmann, Fixsen, Kirigin, Phillips, Phillips, & Wolf, 1975; Kazdin, 1977; WiUner, Braukmann, Kirigin, Fixsen, Phillips, & Wolf, 1977; Wolf, 1978). One means of determining whether procedures are socially valid is to ask consumers what procedures they prefer (Brauk- mann et al.; Willner et al.). Other approaches are also possible: the important point is that whenever possible trainees should be taught procedures that are socially valid, as well as effective in order to increase social and legal acceptance of change agents' skills.

What Teaching Techniques Are Most Likely to Promote Acquisition o f Behavior Change Skills?

The bulk of research on training behavior change agents consists of studies of the effectiveness of various techniques used to train parents, teachers, or institution staff to function as behavior managers or behavior manager-behavioral engineer combinations. One of the most consistent findings reported is that instruction alone, while it may contribute to knowledge of behavioral principles, is not sufficient when applied skills are to be taught (Gardner, 1975; Kazdin & Moyer, 1976; Sepler & My- ers, 1978). There are also consistent reports which support the efficacy of modeling and/or rehearsal (e.g., Koegel, Glahn, & Nieminen, 1978; Sloat, Tharp, & Gallimore, 1977), feedback (e.g., Christoff, Spencer, Edelstein, Couture, Sims, & Vieira, Note 3; Thomson, Holmberg, &


Baer, 1978), modeling (e.g., Gladstone & Spencer, 1977), reinforcement (Bates, 1977; Gardner, 1975; Gardner, 1976), cues (Bates), self-monitoring (Bornstein & Hamilton, 1978), and instructional materials (Heifetz, 1977; O'Dell, Krug, O'Quin, & Kasnetz, 1980; O'Dell, Mahoney, Horton, & Turner, 1979), in teaching applied skills. However, most of the more recent research reports on the efficacy of combinations of training procedures.

In the one study found on training individuals to function as behavioral consultant/engineers, Burkhart, Behles, and Stumphauzer (1976) used a combination of programmed instruction, lecture, discussion modeling, group problem solving, and homework. Combinations used to successfully train behavioral engineer/managers include: role playing, feedback, and self-management (Komaki, 1977); homework, feedback, rehearsal, and lecture (Stern & Golden, 1977); and lecture, examples, role-played modeling, and homework (Schinke, 1979). Also, Heifetz (1977) compared manuals alone to manuals plus phone contact, manuals plus groups, and manuals plus groups and visits. He found manuals alone as effective as any of the other conditions. In another comparative study, O'Dell, Flynn, and Benlolo (1977) found that pretraining in behavioral principles did not enhance the effects of instructions plus live modeling plus rehearsal plus homework.

Some of the combinations of teaching procedures which have been effective in teaching behavior manager skills are: instructions plus role playing plus feedback (Jones, Fremouw, & Carples, 1977); self-monitoring plus feedback (Sanson-Fisher, Seymour, & Baer, 1976); and manual plus lecture plus rationale plus modeling plus role playing plus feedback (Willner et al., 1977). For other studies which utilized combinations of teaching procedures, see Dancer, Braukmann, Schumaker, Kirigin, Will- ner, and Wolf (1978); Dowrick and Johns (1976); Duker and Seys (1980); Flanagan, Adams, and Forehand (1979); Humphreys, Forehand, Mc- Mahon and Roberts (1978); Kelley, Embry, and Baer (1979); Koegel et al. (1978); and Montegar, Reid, Madsen, and Ewell (1977).

It is not surprising to find that various combinations of teaching procedures can be effective; that finding has been reported across disciplines and skills taught for some time. Perhaps one of the most standardized and widely disseminated packages available is the procedure known as microcounseling (Ivey, 1974). Microcounseling consists of the following components: (a) the trainee is videotaped conducting a 5-min counseling session; (b) the trainee reads materials describing the skill to be taught, views videotaped models demonstrating the skill, and views and receives supervision feedback on the session she or he conducted; (c) the trainee is videotaped conducting another 5-rain counseling session; and (d) the second tape is examined. Depending on the level of skill acquisition demonstrated, all of the training procedures may be repeated. According to Ivey (1973, 1974), the important features of microcounseling include cue discrimination, self-observation, reinforcement, and the emphasis on acquisition of one skill at a time.

14 BERNSTEIN

The problem with all research which tests the efficacy of teaching packages is that it does not tell us which components of those packages are most effective. Comparative studies of possible components are rare, probably in part because they are tedious and difficult to arrange. One report indicates that self-monitoring and observer feedback tend to result in larger gains than graphed feedback or bug-in-the-ear feedback (Thom- son et al., 1978). In another, Sloat, Tharp, and Gallimore (1977) found incremental effects for modeling plus role playing, video feedback, and graphed feedback with set goals, but not for direct coaching or graphed feedback without goals.

We are still very far from identifying optimally effective combinations of training procedures. Further, we do not know which combinations are most effective for teaching which change agent functions. Research which addresses these issues is needed, difficult though it may be to perform. Additionally, few studies have addressed the possibility that effectiveness of procedures such as modeling and feedback may vary as the dimensions of those procedures vary. As Ford (1980) has observed, modeling involves a message (is the model effective or ineffective?), a valence (does the model receive positive or negative consequences for the demonstrated behavior?), a model, and a medium. Feedback can be immediate or delayed, individual or group, private or public, personal or mechanical, and can be presented on a variety of schedules (Hutchison, Jarman, & Bailey, 1980). Moreover, not all feedback can be assumed to be accurate (Ford, 1979), and the effects of some types of inaccurate feedback (e.g., supervisory) are unknown. Research is also needed which uses categories such as these to systematically examine the effects of varying the way a given teaching procedure is utilized.

There is also a need for social validation of training procedures; that is, to identify procedures preferred by trainees. Clark and Macrae (1976) individualized the social validation process by offering trainees a choice of one or more training components. The self-selected packages were as effective as an imposed package in promoting acquisition of trainer-specified skills, and were preferred to the imposed package. This finding raises an interesting question: whether offering trainees their choice of instructional components is more efficient than attempting to match procedures to trainee characteristics such as reading rate, prior attitudes and preferred reinforcers, as Pascal (1976) has suggested. Regardless of the meth- od used, if we accept Wolf's (1978) argument that it is necessary to socially validate procedures applied to clients, we are logically obligated to also validate procedures applied to trainees who will be working with clients. One obvious approach to social validation of training procedures is to expose trainees to a variety of procedures and then ask them which they prefer.

What Procedures Are Most Likely to Assure Generalization of Behavior Change Skills?

As Braukmann et al. (1975) have observed, even if trainees learn high quality skills there is no guarantee they will use those skills. It is, there-

B E H A V I O R C H A N G E AGENTS 15

fore, necessary to identify procedures which will promote generalization of behavior change skills. The research results available on generalization of those skills are not encouraging. In general, the more rigorous the assessment of generalization the less evidence for generalization found (Forehand & Atkeson, 1977). This is a serious problem because even though client behavior change is ideally a powerful enough reinforcer to support change agent behavior, in practice it often does not function as such (Loeber & Weisman, 1975).

The literature on generalization over time (i.e., maintenance) is some- what more encouraging than most other work on generalization of training, but it relates primarily to behavior manager functions. For behavioral engineers, public posting has maintained attendance and performance at team meetings (Hutchison et al., 1980). Also, both monthly and weekly personal feedback have effectively maintained goal writing skills over time (Ford, 1980). Behavioral engineer/managers have displayed maintenance over time due to weekly written feedback, personal feedback, and public posting (Prue, Krapfl, Noah, Cannon, & Maley, 1980) and following training with manuals (Baker, Heifetz, & Murphy, 1980).

Behavior manager performance has been maintained via reinforcement of each other's behavior (Bates, 1977), policy revision (Andrasik, Mc- Namara, & Abbott, 1978), tokens plus money (Kazdin & Moyer, 1976), planned activities plus feedback plus contingent reinforcement (Seys & Duker, 1978), feedback plus approval (Brown, Willis, & Reid, Note 4), feedback (Loeber & Weisman, 1975), public posting plus feedback (Greene, Willis, Levy, & Bailey, 1978), peer competition plus cash prizes (Patterson, Griffin, & Panyan, 1976), opportunity to win rearrangement of days off (Iwata, Bailey, Brown, Foshee, & Alpern, 1976), and self- recording plus set criteria plus observation (Burg, Reid, & Lattimore, 1979).

Generalization can occur not only over time, but also across settings, behaviors, and subjects (Drabman, Hammer, & Rosenbaum, 1979). How- ever, there is little training research available regarding techniques which promote these latter three classes of generalization. It is clear these three classes of generalization are vital to effective programming. Manager skills are typically not trained in every setting in which they are needed. Increases in rate of program implementation following training in behavioral observation would be extremely desirable. Changes in the behavioral skills of nontarget subjects are also desirable, since training change agents is more cost-effective if it results in acquisition of behavioral skills by individuals who have not received direct training.

Among the few studies which report obtaining generalization other than over time are the work of Jones et al. (1977), O'Dell et al. (1977), and Schinke (1979). Schinke found generalization of manager behaviors across group home residents after training in general principles and techniques with program planning for selected residents. Generalization of manager behaviors from workshop training to home has been obtained by O'Dell et al. (1977). Jones et al. (1977) planned for generalization of training effects across teachers by providing instruction in both behavior

16 BERNSTEIN

manager skills and the means of teaching those skills to classroom teachers. They then used their newly acquired training skills, which included use of role plays, rationales, and corrective feedback, to train a new group of teachers. This approach not only resulted in acquisition of behavior manager skills by the second group of teachers, it also strength- ened skills of teachers in the first group who had benefited the least from initial training.

Several approaches to generalization which have been suggested but not thoroughly studied include: teaching trainees to teach clients self- control (Gardner, 1976), teaching trainees to serf-monitor their own behavior change efforts (Loeber & Weisman, 1975), and including suggestions to generalize in training content (Mindell & Budd, Note 5). Koegel et al. (1978) and Monroe (Note 6) have suggested teaching general procedures rather than techniques suitable just for specific problems in order to facilitate generalization of behavior change skills. This is an example of what Stokes and Baer (1977) refer to as mediating generalization. It may be that failure to teach basic concepts (e.g., functional analysis) as well as skills leads to the failure of many behavior management programs (Hummel & Deitz, Note 7; Monroe, Note 6). This suggestion is an important one because, if it is shown to be effective, trainers will need to seriously question whether it is appropriate to train anyone as a behavior manager without also providing training in behavioral engineering skills.

It would not be surprising to find that increasing behavior manager involvement in program design increases generalization of program implementation skills, since there are strong indications in the management literature that increased responsibility increases motivation to perform (Herzberg, 1968). This is also consistent with Gardner's (1975, 1976) suggestion that psychological ownership of change procedures may be pos- itively related to client behavior change. Psychological ownership -refers to the extent to which an individual identifies with an idea or action" (Gardner, 1975, p. 479). It can be fostered in behavior change agents by having them choose their own techniques, schedules, supplies, goals, and so forth. Increasing behavior manager involvement in program planning can also be thought of as a social validation procedure.

It may also be possible to facilitate the emission of certain behaviors via alteration of environmental arrangements. Twardosz, Cataldo, and Risley (1974) demonstrated that rearrangement of the physical environment can increase the likelihood of desirable staff behaviors. They found that an open environment in a day care center made consistent supervision more likely than a closed environment.

Additionally, Loeber and Weisman (1975) have recommended that managers select those clients with whom they wish to work. While this process may lead to an increase in the proportion of programs implemented, it could result in neglect of individuals who display particularly aversive behaviors. Hence, it might be more helpful to concentrate on the development of incentives for implementing programs designed for difficult clients.


Yet another means of providing environmental support for generalization of behavior change skills may be the establishment of formal feedback systems which specify skills change agents must display and regu- larly evaluate whether change agents are meeting the specified standards. The annual certification process for teaching parents described by Brauk- mann et al. (1975), which they suggest is necessary for quality control, is an example of a formal feedback system. While issues related to certification of behavior change agents have been extensively discussed (e.g., Woods, i975), certification has not been empirically examined to determine its effect on skill generalization. An empirical investigation of the effects of formal systems such as the career ladder for behavior analysts in Minnesota (Thomas, 1979) and the certification examination of- fered by the Association for Behavior Analysis (1980) is needed in order to determine whether these systems do support generalization of behavior change skills. Formal feedback systems within agencies (e.g., performance evaluations) might also be manipulated to determine their effects on change agent performance.

Finally, little attention has been paid to the efficiency or cost-effectiveness of procedures designed to teach or promote generalization of behavior change skills. Once effective procedures have been identified, there is a need to determine which ones will reach as many change agents as possible as inexpensively as possible. There are several suggestions on how to meet this need in the literature, such as training staff who then train other staff (Ziarnik & Bernstein, Note 8) or teaching behavior management in courses teachers must take to maintain certification (Hummel & Deitz, Note 7). Considerable research is needed to evaluate these and similar suggestions.

CONCLUSIONS This discussion has been presented to provide a systematic means of

analyzing and designing research on the training of behavior change agents. The recommendations for future research on training presented herein can be summarized as follows: efforts should be made to identify those problems commonly encountered by behavior change agents which are functionally related to client behavior change; there is a need to identify and teach those skills which result in the solutions to common problems that are functionally related to the client behavior; research on training procedures is needed which compares the efficacy of various combinations of procedures and which compares the efficacy of various dimensions of specific procedures such as modeling and feedback; studies on the generalization of training are needed, particularly generalization across settings, behaviors, and subjects, which test the long term utility of approaches such as certification, environmental arrangement, training trainers, and the teaching of general problem-solving skills; research on all these questions should consider whether the answers vary according to the function of the behavior change agents being studied, with more emphasis than in the past on consultant and engineer functioning; and

18 BERNSTEIN

future research on training should address questions of social validity, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness.

REFERENCE NOTES 1. Ziarnik, J. P., Rudrud, E. H., & Bernstein, G. S. Designing human services for success:

A behavioral ecosystems approach. Presented at the Meeting of the American Associ- ation on Mental Deficiency, Detroit, 1981.

2. Luke, D. Competency based training in community mental health. Presented at the Meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, 1977.

3. Christoff, L., Spencer, J., Edelstein, B., Couture, E., Sims, C., & Vieira, K. Teaching interviewing skills: Immediate versus delayed feedback. Presented at the Meeting of the Association for Behavior Analysis, Chicago, 1978.

4. Brown, K., Willis, B. S., & Reid, D. H. Differential effects o f supervisor verbal feedback and approval on institutional s ta f f performance. Presented at the Meeting of the Asso- ciation for Behavior Analysis, Chicago, 1978.

5. Mindell, C., & Budd, K. S. Issues in the generalization o f parent training across settings. Presented at the Meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Fran- cisco, 1977.

6. Monroe, C. M. Training s taf f to use behavioral technology: Technique or analytic process. Presented at the Meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York, 1979.

7. Hummel, J. H., & Deitz, S. M. Training teachers to use behavior modification: An evaluative review. Presented at the Meeting of the Association for Behavior Analysis, Dearborn, 1979.

8. Ziaruik, J. P., & Bernstein, G. S. Evaluation o f a program designed to teach behavioral skills to direct care staff. Manuscript submitted for publication, 1980.

REFERENCES Adams, G. L., Tallon, R. J., & Rimell, P. A comparison of lecture versus role playing in

the training of the use of positive reinforcement. Journal o f Organizational Behavior Management, 1980, 2, 205-212.

Andrasik, R., & McNamara, J . R . Optimizing staff performance in an institutional behavior change system. Behavior Modification, 1977, 1, 235-248.

Andrasik, K. F., McNamara, J. R., & Abbott, A. M. Policy control: A low resource intervention for improving staff behavior. Journal o f Organizational Behavior Man- agement, 1978, 1, 125-133.

Arnold, S., Sturgis, E., & Forehand, R. Training a parent to teach communication skills: A case study. Behavior Modification, 1977, 1,259-276.

Association for Behavior Analysis. Sixth annual convention program. Kalamazoo: West- ern Michigan University, 1980.

Baker, B. L., Heifetz, L. J., & Murphy, D.M. Behavioral training for parents of mentally retarded children: One year follow-up. American Journal o f Mental Deficiency, 1980, 85, 31-38.

Bates, P. The search for reinforcers to train and maintain effective parent behaviors. Rehabilitation Literature, 1977, 9, 291-295.

Bergan, J. R., Byrnes, I. M., & Kratochwill, T. R. Affects of behavioral and medical models of consultation on teacher expectancies and instruction of a hypothetical child. Journal o f School Psychology, 1979, 17, 307-316.

Bergan, J. R., Kratochwill, T. R., & Luiten, J. Competency-based training in behavioral consultation. Journal o f School Psychology, 1980, 18, 91-97.


Bergan, J. R., & Tombari, M . L . Consultant skill and efficiency and the implementation and outcomes of consultation. Journal of School Psychology, 1976, 14, 3-14.

Bernstein, G. S. Development and evaluation of an instrument designed to assess the competence of behavior managers (Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1978). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1979, 39, 4567-B.

Bornstein, P. H., & Hamilton, S. B. Positive parental praise: Increasing reactivity and accuracy of self-observation. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 1978, 6, 503- 509.

Braukmann, D. C., Fixsen, D. L., Kirigin, K. A., Phillips, E. A., Phillips, E. L., & Wolf, M . M . Achievement place: The training and certification of teaching parents. In W. S. Wood (Ed,), Issues in evaluating behavior modification. Champaign, IL: Re- search Press, 1975.

Burg, M. M., Reid, D. H., & Lattimore, J. Use of a self-recording and supervision program to change institutional staffbehavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1979, 12, 363-375.

Burka, A. A., & Jones, F . H . Procedures for increasing appropriate verbal participation in special elementary classrooms. Behavior Modification, 1979, 3, 27-48.

Burkhart, B. R., Behles, M. W., & Stumphauzer, J .S. Training juvenile probation officers in behavior modification: Knowledge, attitude change, or behavioral competence? Be- havior Therapy, 1976, 7, 47-53.

Caplan, C. The theo~, and practice of mental health consultation. New York: Basic Books, 1970.

Carnine, D. W., & Fink, W.T . Increasing the rate of presentation and use of signals in elementary classroom teachers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1978, 11, 35- 46.

Cherniss, C. Organizational design and the social environment in group homes for mentally retarded persons. In H. C. Haywood & J. R. Newbrough (Eds.), Living environments for developmentally retarded persons. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1981.

Clark, H. B., & Macrae, J .W. The use of imposed and self-selected training packages to establish classroom teaching skills. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1976, 9, 105.

Dancer, D. D., Braukmann, L. J., Schumaker, J. B., Kirigin, K. A., Willner, A. G., & Wolf, M. M. The training and validation of behavior observation and description skills. Behavior Modification, 1978, 2, 113-134.

Doleys, D. M., Doster, J., & Cartelli, L . M . Parent training techniques: Effects of lec- t u r e - r o l e playing followed by feedback and self-recording. Journal of Behavior Ther- apy and Experimental Psychiatry, 1976, 7, 359-362.

Dowrick, P. W., & Johns, E .M. Video feedback effects on therapist attention to on-task behaviors of disturbed children. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psy- chiatry, 1976, 7, 255-257,

Drabman, R. S., Hammer, D., & Rosenbaum, M.S . Assessing generalization with children: The generalization map. Behavioral Assessment, 1979, 1,203-219.

Duker, P. C., & Seys, D.M. The use of verbal prompts by nurses: The effects of feedback on acquisition and generalization. Behavioural Analysis and Modification, 1980, 4, 71- 76.

Fabry, P. L., & Reid, D .H . Teaching foster grandparents to train severely handicapped persons. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1978, 11, 111-123.

Firestone, P., Kelly, M. J., & Fike, S. Are fathers necessary in parent training groups? Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 1980, 9, 44--47.

Flanagan, S., Adams, H. E., & Forehand, R. A comparison of four instructional techniques for teaching parents to use time-out. Behavior Therapy, 1979, 10, 94-•02.

Fleischman, M.J . Using parenting salaries to control attrition and cooperation in therapy. Behavior Therapy, 1979, 10, 111-116.

20 BERNSTEIN

Ford, J. D. Research on training counselors and clinicians. Review of Educational Re- search, 1979, 49, 87-130.

Ford, J . E . A classification system for feedback procedures. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 1980, 2, 183-191.

Forehand, R., & Atkeson, B.M. Generality of treatment effects with parents as therapists: A review of assessment and implementation procedures. Behavior Therapy, 1977, 8, 575-593.

Forehand, R., & King, H . E . Noncompliant children: Effects of parent training on behavior and attitude change. Behavior Modification, 1977, 1, 93-108.

Forehand, R., Sturgis, E. T., McMahon, R. J., Aguar, D., Green, K., Wells, K. C., & Breiner, J. Parent behavioral training to modify child noncompliance: Treatment generalization across time and from home to school. Behavior Modification. 1979, 3, 3- 25.

Forehand, R., Wells, K. C., & Guest, D .L . An examination of a parent training program. Behavior Therapy, 1980, 11,488-502.

Fredericks, H. B., Anderson, R. B., Baldwin, V. L., Grove, D., Moore, W. G., Moore, M., & Beaird, J. H. The identification of competencies of teachers of the severely handicapped. Monmouth: Oregon Teaching Research Division, 1977.

Gardner, J. M. Training non-professionals in behavior modification. In T. Thompson & W. Dockens (Eds.), Applications of behavior modification. New York: Academic Press, 1975.

Gardner, J. M, Training parents as behavior modifiers. In S. Yen & R. W. Mclntire (Eds.), Teaching behavior modification. Kalamazoo: Behaviordelia, 1976.

Gladstone, B. W., & Spencer, C . J . The effects of modeling on the contingent praise of mental retardation counsellors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1977, 10, 75-84.

Goldfried, M. R., & D'Zurilla, T . J . A behavioral-analytic model for assessing competence. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Current topics in clinical and community psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Academic Press, 1969.

Greene, B. F., Willis, B. S., Levy, R., & Bailey, J .S . Measuring client gains from staff- implemented programs. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1978, 11,395-412.

Gump, P .V . Ecological psychologists: Critics or contributors to behavior analysis. In A. Rogers-Warren & S. F. Warren (Eds.), Ecological perspectives in behavior analysis. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1977.

Heifetz, L . J . Behavior training for parents of retarded children: Alternative formats based on instructional manuals. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1977, 82, 194-203.

Herzberg, F. One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Re- view. 1968, 46, 53-62.

Holman, J. The moral risk and high cost of ecological concern in applied behavior analysis. In A. Rogers-Warren & S. F. Warren (Eds.), Ecological perspectives in behavior analysis. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1977.

Humphreys, L., Forehand, R., McMahon, R., & Roberts, M. Parent behavioral training to modify child noncompliance: Effects on untreated siblings. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 1978, 9, 235-238.

Hutchison, J. M., Jarman, P. H., & Bailey, J .S . Public posting with a habilitation team: Effects on attendance and performance. Behavior Modification, 1980, 4, 57-70.

Ivey, A . E . Microcounseling: The counselor as trainer. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1973, 51, 311-316.

Ivey, A. E. Microcounseling and media therapy: State of the art. Counselor Education and Supervision, 1974, 13, 172-183.

Iwata, B. A., Bailey, J. S., Brown, K. M., Foshee, T. J., & Alpern, M. A performance- based lottery to improve residential care and training by institutional staff. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1976, 9, 417-431.

BEHAVIOR CHANGE AGENTS 2l

Jones, F, H., Fremouw, W., & Carples, S. Pyramid training of elementary school teachers to use a classroom management"skill package." Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1977, 10, 239-253.

Kanfer, F. H., & Saslow, G. Behavioral diagnosis. In C. M. Franks (Ed.), Behavior therapy: Appraisal and status. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1969.

Kazdin, A. E. Assessing the clinical or applied importance of behavior change through social validation. Behavior Modification, 1977, 1,427--452.

Kazdin, A. E., & Moyer, W. Training teachers to use behavior modification. In S. Yen & R. Mclntire (Eds.), Teaching behavior modification. Kalamazoo, MI: Behaviordelia, 1976.

Kelley, M. L., Embry, L. H., & Baer, D. M. Skills for child management and family support: Training parents for maintenance. Behavior Modification, 1979, 3, 373-396.

Koegel, R. L., Glahn, R. J., & Nieminen, G.S . Generalization of parent training results. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1978, 11, 95-109.

Koegel, R. L., Russo, D. C., & Rincover, A. Assessing and training teachers in the use of behavior modification with autistic children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1977, 10, 197-205.

Komaki, J. Using behavioral self-control strategies in the training of beginning counseling skills. Behavior Therapy, 1977, 8, 99-101.

Krotochwill, T. R., & Bergan, J .R. Training school psychologists: Some perspectives on a competency-based behavioral consultation model. Professional Psychology, 1978, 9, 71-82.

Loeber, R., & Weisman, R. G. Contingencies of therapist and trainer performance: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 1975, 82, 660-688.

Macrae, J. W., Field, S., Clark, R. S., & Clark, H, B. Two teacher training packages: Their effectiveness and the trainees' preference for various components. School Ap- plications of Learning Theory, 1976, 9, 3-15.

Mansdorf, K, J., Bucich, D. A., & Judd, L . C . Behavioral treatment strategies of institution ward staff. Mental Retardation, 1977, 15, 22-24.

Marston, A .R . Behavior ecology emerges from behavior modification: Sidesteps toward a nonspecial profession. Behavior Modification, 1979, 3, 147-160.

McMahon, R, J., & Forehand, R. Nonprescription behavior therapy: Effectiveness of a brochure in teach,.'ng mothers to correct their children's inappropriate mealtime behaviors. Behavior Therapy, 1978, 9, 814-820.

Miller, S. J., & Sloane, H. N., Jr. The generalization effects of parent training across stimulus settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1976, 9, 355-370.

Montegar, C. A., Reid, D. H., Madsen, C, H., & Ewell, M . D . Increasing institutional staff to resident interactions through in-service training and supervisor approval. Be- havior Therapy, 1977, 8, 533-540.

O'Dell, S., Flynn, J., & Benlolo, L. A comparison of parent training techniques in child behavior modification. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 1977, 8, 261-268.

O'Dell, S., Krug, W. W., O'Quin, J., & Kasnetz, M. Media-assisted parent training--A further analysis, the Behavior Therapist, 1980, 3, 19-21.

O'Dell, S. L., Krug, W. W., Patterson, J. N., & Faustman, W. O. An assessment of methods for training parents in the use of time out. Journal of Behavior Therapy and ExperimentaIPsychiatry, 1980, 11, 21-25.

O'Dell, S. L., Mahoney, N. D., Horton, W. G., & Turner, P . E . Media-assisted parent training: Alternative models. Behavior Therapy, 1979, 10, 103-110.

Pascal, C. D. Using principles of behavior modification to teach behavior modification. Exceptional Children. 1976, 42, 426-530.

Patterson, E. T., Griffin, J. C., & Panyan, M.C. Incentive maintenance program for non-

22 BERNSTEIN

professional personnel. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 1976, 7, 249-253.

Peed, S., Roberts, M., & Forehand, R. Evaluation of the effectiveness of a standardized parent training program in altering the interaction of mothers and their noncompliant children. Behavior Modification, 1977, 1, 323-350.

Prue, D. M., Krapfl, J. E., Noah, J. C., Cannon, S., & Maley, R. F. Managing the treatment activities of state hospital staff. Journal of Organizational Behavior Man- agement, 1980, 2, 165-181.

Reisinger, J. J., Frangia, G. W., & Hoffman, E . H . Toddler management training: Gen- eralization and marital status. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psy- chiatry, 1976, 7, 335-340.

Repp, A. C., & Deitz, D. E .D . Ethical issues in reducing responding of institutionalized mentally retarded persons. Mental Retardation, 1978, 16, 45-46.

Rogers-Warren, A., & Warren, S. F. The developing ecobehavioral psychology. In A. Rogers-Warren & S. F. Warren (Eds.), Ecological perspectives in behavior analysis. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1977.

Sanson-Fisher, R. W., Seymour, F. W., & Baer, D.M. Training institutional staff to alter delinquents' conversation. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 1976, 7, 243-247.

Schinke, S .P . Staff training in group homes: A family approach. In L. A. Hamerlynck (Ed.), Behavioral systems for the developmentally disabled: H. New York: Brunner/ Mazel, 1979.

Schinke, S. P., & Wong, S . E . Evaluation of staff training in group homes for retarded persons. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1977, 82, 130-136.

Sepler, J. J., & Myers, S .L . The effectiveness of verbal instruction on teaching behavior modification skills to nonprofessionals. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1978, 11, 198.

Seys, D. M., & Duker, P . C . Improving residential care for the retarded by differential reinforcement of high rates of ward-staff behavior. Behavioural Analysis and Modifi- cation. 1978, 2, 203-210.

Sloat, J. C. M., Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. The incremental effectiveness of classroom based teacher training techniques. Behavior Therapy, 1977, 8, 810-818.

Speidel, G. E., & Tharp, R. G. Teacher-training workshop strategy: Instructions, discrimination training, modeling, guided practice, and video feedback. Behavior Therapy, 1978, 9, 735-739.

Stern, M, R., & Golden, F. A partial evaluation of an introductory training program in behavior modification for psychiatric nurses. American Journal of Community Psy- chology, 1977, 5, 23-32.

Stokes, T. F., & Baer, P .M. An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1977, 10, 349-367.

Sulzer-Azaroff, B., Thaw, J., & Thomas, C. Behavioral competencies for the evaluation of behavior modifiers. In W. S. Wood (Ed.), Issues in evah~ating behavior modification. Champaign: Research Press, 1975.

Tharp, R. G., & Wetzel, R. J. Behavior modification in the natural environment. New York: Academic Press, 1969.

Thomas, D . R . Certification of behavior analysts in Minnesota. The Behavior Analyst, 1979, 2, 1-13.

Thomson, C. L., Holmberg, M. C., & Baer, D. M. An experimental analysis of some procedures to teach priming and reinforcement skills to preschool teachers. Mono- graphs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1978, 43(4).

Tombari, M. L., & Bergan, J .R . Consultant cues and teacher verbalizations, judgments,


and expectancies concerning children's adjustment problems. Journal of School Psy- chology, 1978, 16, 212-219.

Twardosz, S., Cataldo, M. F., & Risley, T. R. An open environment design for infant and toddler day care. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1974, 7, 529-546.

Upper, D., Lochman, J. E., & Aveni, C.A. Using contingency contracting to modify the problematic behaviors of foster home residents. Behavior Modification, 1977, 1, 405- 416.

Willems, E .P . Steps toward an ecobehavioral technology. In A. Rogers-Warren & S. F. Warren (Eds.), Ecological perspectives in behavior analysis. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1977.

Willner, A. G., Braukmann, C. J., Kirigin, D. A., Fixsen, D. L., Phillips, E. L., & Wolf, M.M. The training and validation of youth preferred social behaviors of child-care personnel. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1977, 10, 219-230.

Wolf, M. M. Social validity: The case for subjective measurement, or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1978, 11, 203 -214.

Woods, W. S. (Ed.). lssues in evaluating behavior modification. Champaign, IL: Research Press, 1975.

RECEIVED: June 13, 1980 FINAL ACCEPTANCE" September 4, 1981

Documents

Training behavior change agents: A conceptual review