The Effects of Standard and Enhanced Data Sheets and Brief Video Training on Implementation of Conditional Discrimination Training

  • Linda A. LeBlancEmail author
  • Layla A. Sump
  • Justin B. Leaf
  • Joseph Cihon
Research Article


Grow and LeBlanc (2013) described practice recommendations for conducting conditional discrimination training with children with autism. One recommendation involved using a specially designed datasheet to provide the preset target stimulus for each trial along with counterbalancing the location of stimuli if a three-item array of comparison stimuli. This study evaluated whether the recommended data sheet would lead to higher procedural integrity of counterbalancing trials compared to a standard data sheet (i.e., targets and arrays are not pre-set). Forty behavior therapists from two provider agencies participated. Participants were randomly assigned to either the standard data sheet condition or the enhanced data sheet condition. Participants watched a short video on Grow and LeBlanc’s practice recommendations for a matching task and an orientation to the datasheet for the assigned condition, and then implemented the matching task with a confederate serving in the role of the child with autism. The enhanced data sheet resulted in higher accuracy of implementation on counterbalancing than the standard data sheet, with the largest difference for rotation of the target stimulus across trials and for counterbalancing the placement of the correct comparison stimulus in the array.


Autism Conditional discrimination Counterbalancing Data collection Discrimination training Matching Procedural integrity Staff training 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

The authors of this manuscript declare no conflict of interest regarding this manuscript. No funding was associated with the current study.

Ethical Approval: All procedures were performed in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional review committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.


  1. DiGennaro Reed, F. D., Reed, D. D., Baez, C. N., & Maguire, H. (2011). A parametric analysis of errors of commission during discrete-trial training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 611–615. Scholar
  2. Farber, R. S., Dickson, C. A., & Dube, W. V. (2017). Reducing overselective stimulus control with differential observing responses. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50, 87–105. Scholar
  3. Fisher, W. W., Retlaff, B. J., Akers, J. S., DeSouza, A. A., & Kaminski, A. J. (2019). Establishing initial auditory-visual conditional discriminations and emergence of initial tacts in young children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis.Google Scholar
  4. Galloway, C. (1967). Modification of a response bias through a differential amount of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 10, 375–382. Scholar
  5. Geiger, K. B., LeBlanc, L. A., Hubik, K., Jenkins, S. R., & Carr, J. E. (2018). Live training versus e-learning to teach implementation of listener response programs. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 51, 220–235. Scholar
  6. Green, G. (2001). Behavior analytic instruction for learners with autism: Advances in stimulus control technology. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 16, 72–85. Scholar
  7. Grow, L., & LeBlanc, L. (2013). Teaching receptive language skills: Recommendations for instructors. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 6, 56–75. Scholar
  8. Grow, L. L., Carr, J. E., Gunby, K. V., Charania, S. M., Gonsalves, L., Ktaech, I. A., & Kisamore, A. N. (2009). Deviations from prescribed prompting procedures: Implications for treatment integrity. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18, 142–156. Scholar
  9. Grow, L. L., Carr, J. E., Kodak, T. M., Jostad, C. M., & Kisamore, A. N. (2011). A comparison of methods for teaching receptive labeling to children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 475–498. Scholar
  10. Grow, L. L., Kodak, T. M., & Carr, J. E. (2014). A comparison of methods for teaching receptive labeling to children with autism spectrum disorders: A systematic replication. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47, 600–605. Scholar
  11. Kangas, B. D., & Branch, M. N. (2008). Empirical validation of a procedure to correct position and stimulus biases in matching to sample. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 90, 103–112. Scholar
  12. LaMarca, V., & LaMarca, J. (2018). Designing receptive language programs: Pushing the boundaries of research and practice. Behavior Analysis in Practice.
  13. Leaf, J. B., Cihon, J. H., Leaf, R., McEachin, J., & Taubman, M. (2016). A progressive approach to discrete trial teaching: Some current guidelines. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 9, 361–372.Google Scholar
  14. Lerman, D. L., Valentino, A., & LeBlanc, L. A. (2016). Discrete trial training. In R. Lang, T. Hancock, & N. N. Singh (Eds.), Early intervention for children with autism spectrum disorders (pp. 47–84). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  15. Lovaas, O. I. (1977). The autistic child: Language development through behavior modification. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
  16. Lovaas, O. I. (2003). Teaching individuals with developmental delays: Basic intervention techniques. Austin: PRO-ED.Google Scholar
  17. MacDonald, R., & Langer, S. (2018). Teaching essential discrimination skills to children with autism: A practical guide for parents and educators. Bethesda: Woodbine House.Google Scholar
  18. Mackay, H. A. (1991). Conditional stimulus control. In I. H. Iversen & K. A. Lattal (Eds.), Techniques in the behavioral and neural sciences: Vol. 6. Experimental analysis of behavior (Part 1 (pp. 301–350). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  19. Parsons, M. B., Rollyson, J. H., & Reid, D. H. (2012). Evidence-based staff training: A guide for practitioners. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 5(2), 2–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Petursdottir, A. I., & Aguilar, G. (2016). Order of stimulus presentation influences children’s acquisition in receptive identification tasks. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 49, 58–68. Scholar
  21. Saunders, K. J., & Williams, D. C. (1998). Stimulus-Control Procedures. In K. A. Lattal & M. Perrone (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in human operant behavior. Boston: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Schneider, K. A., Devine, B., Aguilar, G., & Petursdottir, A. I. (2018). Stimulus presentation order in receptive identification tasks: A systematic replication. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 51, 634–646. Scholar
  23. Sidman, M. (1992). Adventitious control by the location of the comparison stimuli in conditional discriminations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 58, 173–182. Scholar
  24. Smith, T. (2001). Discrete trial training in the treatment of autism. Focus on Autism and other Developmental Disabilities, 16, 86–92. Scholar
  25. Vedora, J., & Grandeliski, K. (2015). A comparison of methods for teaching receptive language to toddlers with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48, 188–193. Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Trumpet Behavioral HealthDublinUSA
  2. 2.LeBlanc Behavioral ConsultingGoldenUSA
  3. 3.Autism Partnership Foundation and Endicott CollegeBeverlyUSA

Personalised recommendations