Evaluation of Manualized Instruction to Train Staff to Implement a Token Economy

  • Jennifer Gutierrez
  • Sharon A. ReeveEmail author
  • Jason C. Vladescu
  • Ruth M. DeBar
  • Antonia R. Giannakakos
Research Article


All components of behavioral skills training may not be necessary to effectively train staff to implement behavior-analytic technologies with children with disabilities. This study evaluated manualized instruction to train inexperienced staff to implement a token economy with a confederate and collect data on learner responding. A nonconcurrent multiple-baseline design across staff trainees was used to evaluate the effectiveness of manualized instruction to increase the staff trainees’ accurate implementation of a token economy. Additionally, a modified general case analysis was conducted to identify potential child behaviors. Multiple-exemplar training of these behaviors was presented in random order during sessions. Following the use of the manualized instruction, staff trainees’ accurate implementation of a token economy and data collection on confederate responding increased, the skills generalized from a confederate to a child with autism spectrum disorder, and the skills maintained 1 month following training.


Data collection Manualized instruction Staff training Token economy 



No funding was used for this research.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

40617_2019_386_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (1.8 mb)
ESM 1 (PDF 1851 kb)


  1. Alvero, A. M., Bucklin, B. R., & Austin, J. (2001). An objective review of the effectiveness and essential characteristics of performance feedback in organizational settings. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 21, 3–29. Scholar
  2. Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (2012). Supervisor training curriculum outline. Retrieved on October 10, 2015, from
  3. Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (2014a). Professional and ethical compliance code for behavior analysts. Retrieved on July 8, 2019, from
  4. Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (2014b). Professional and ethical compliance code for behavior analysts.Littleton, CO: Author. Retrieved from
  5. Charlop-Christy, M. H., & Haymes, L. K. (1998). Using objects of obsession as token reinforcers for children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 28, 189–198. Scholar
  6. DeLeon, I. G., & Iwata, B. A. (1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 519–533.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. DiGennaro-Reed, F. D., Codding, R., Catania, C. N., & Maguire, H. (2010). Effects of video modeling on treatment integrity of behavioral interventions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 291–295. Scholar
  8. DiGennaro-Reed, F. D., & Henley, A. J. (2015). A survey of staff training and performance management practices: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 8, 16–26. Scholar
  9. Fisher, W. W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., & Amari, A. (1996). Integrating caregiver report with a systematic choice assessment. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 101, 15–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Gilley, C., & Ringdahl, J. E. (2014). The effects of item preference and token reinforcement on sharing behavior exhibited by children with autism spectrum disorder. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 8, 1425–1433. Scholar
  11. Graff, R. B., & Karsten, A. M. (2012). Evaluation of a self-instruction package for conducting stimulus preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45, 69–82. Scholar
  12. Horner, R. H., Sprague, J., & Wilcox, B. (1982). Construction of general case programs for community activities. In B. Wilcox & G. T. Bellamy (Eds.), Design of high school programs for severely handicapped students (pp. 61–98). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.Google Scholar
  13. Karsten, A. M., Axe, J. B., & Mann, C. C. (2015). Review and discussion of strategies to address low trainer-to-staff ratios. Behavioral Interventions, 30, 295–313. Scholar
  14. Kazdin, A. E. (1982). The token economy: A decade later. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15, 431–445.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Lavie, T., & Sturmey, P. (2002). Training staff to conduct a paired-stimulus preference assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 209–211. Scholar
  16. LeBlanc, L. A., Gravina, N., & Carr, J. E. (2009). Training issues unique to autism spectrum disorders. In J. L. Matson (Ed.), Applied behavior analysis for children with autism spectrum disorders (pp. 225–235). New York, NY: Springer Science + Business Media. Scholar
  17. Nigro-Bruzzi, D., & Sturmey, P. (2010). The effects of behavioral skills training on mand training by staff and unprompted vocal mands by children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 757–761. Scholar
  18. Nottingham, C. L., Vladescu, J. C., Giannakakos, A. R., Schnell, L. K., & Lipschultz, J. L. (2017). Using video modeling with voiceover instruction plus feedback to train implementation of stimulus preference assessments. Learning and Motivation, 58, 37–47. 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, 2–11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Schlinger, H., & Blakely, E. (1987). Function-altering effects of contingency-specifying stimuli. The Behavior Analyst, 10, 41–45.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Severtson, J. M., & Carr, J. E. (2012). Training novice instructors to implement errorless discrete-trial teaching: A sequential analysis. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 2, 13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shuler, N., & Carroll, R. A. (2018). Training supervisors to provide performance feedback using video modeling with voiceover instruction. Behavior Analysis in Practice.
  23. Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349–367. Scholar
  24. Tarbox, R. S. F., Ghezzi, P. M., & Wilson, G. (2006). The effects of token reinforcement on attending in a young child with autism. Behavioral Interventions, 21, 155–164. Scholar
  25. Thiessen, C., Fazzio, D., Arnal, L., Martin, G. L., Yu, C. T., & Keilback, L. (2009). Evaluation of a self-instructional manual for conducting discrete-trials teaching with children with autism. Behavior Modification, 33, 360–373. Scholar
  26. Watson, P. J., & Workman, E. A. (1981). The non-concurrent multiple baseline across-individuals design: An extension of the traditional multiple baseline design. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 12, 257–259.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Weldy, C. R., Rapp, J. T., & Capocasa, K. (2014). Training staff to implement brief stimulus preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47, 214–218. Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Caldwell UniversityCaldwellUSA
  2. 2.Manhattanville CollegeNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations