Entrenamiento de Habilidades Conductuales: BOP en Español 16 con Maria Sanchez

What happens when an organization responds to a productivity problem by lowering its billable-hour requirement? In Session 340 the Behavioral Observations Podcast, Matt Linder, Chief Operating Officer of First Children's Services, and Founder and CEO of Desired Effect Coaching Solutions, joins me to discuss an organizational challenge that will be familiar to many ABA providers: high BCBA turnover, low morale, and a compensation system built around demanding billable-hour expectations. Matt describes how the existing system required BCBAs to average 28 billable hours per week and included consequences for falling short of those expectations. At the same time, the organization was experiencing substantial BCBA turnover, with 31 BCBAs leaving over an 18-month period. Rather than simply increasing pressure to meet productivity expectations, Matt helped redesign the system. The organization lowered required billable hours by approximately four hours per week while maintaining salaries, and introduced a positive reinforcement-based bonus system that allowed BCBAs to earn additional compensation for exceeding their targets and supervising behavior technicians. How did this all work out? Tune in to hear how making these somewhat counterintuitive changes substantially reduced turnover and increased productivity. During our conversation, Matt and I discuss: Why the original compensation and productivity system was creating problems. How turnover costs helped make the business case for changing the system. The decision to lower billable-hour requirements while maintaining BCBA salaries. Shifting from punitive contingencies to a bonus system based on positive reinforcement. Creating a transparent compensation calculator so employees could see how the new system would affect their earnings. The importance of employee feedback and trust during organizational change. Monitoring for unintended consequences when changing performance contingencies. Why financial and productivity measures aren't sufficient without meaningful measures of clinical outcomes. Developing career ladders and leadership opportunities for RBTs. Lessons for behavior analysts who want to begin doing OBM work. Matt also discusses several initiatives currently underway at First Children's Services, including improved measurement of clinical outcomes, an RBT career ladder and mentorship system, and the integration of newly acquired private schools. Toward the end of the conversation, Matt offers a useful starting point for behavior analysts interested in OBM: identify clearly what you're trying to accomplish, determine how you're going to measure it, and then use behavioral principles to evaluate whether the changes you make are actually producing the outcomes you want. Resources: First Children's Services: firstchildrenservices.com Careers at First Children's Services Matt Linder: [email protected] Abernathy (2009): Walden Two Revisited: Optimizing Behavioral Systems Abernathy (1996): The Sin of Wages: Where the Conventional Pay System has Led Us, and How to Find a Way Out Binder (2024): The Value in Focusing on Work Outputs Sponsor shoutouts! Behavior University. Their mission is to provide university quality professional development for the busy Behavior Analyst. Learn about their CEU offerings, including their 8-hour Supervision Course, as well as their RBT offerings over at behavioruniversity.com/observations. Don't forget to use the coupon code, PODCAST to save at checkout! Learn from your favorite podcast guests while you're commuting, walking the dog, or whatever else you do while listening to podcasts. New events are being added all the time, so check them out here. HRIC Recruting. Cut out the middleman and speak directly with Barbara Voss, who's been placing BCBAs in great jobs all across the US for 15 years. Rethinking Resilience: Join The Behavioral Toolbox International on November 10th for a one-day virtual confere

What exactly do we mean when we say we're "fading" a prompt? Is a physical prompt inherently more intrusive—or more difficult to eliminate—than a gestural or verbal prompt? And what does "errorless learning" actually tell us about the teaching procedures we're using? Dr. Andy Bondy returns to the podcast to tackle these questions through the lens of gradualism: the idea that meaningful behavioral change often emerges through small changes that accumulate over time. Andy has recently been presenting on gradualism to behavior analysts and other professionals, and in this conversation we explore what the concept might contribute to the way we think about teaching, prompting, generalization, and skill development. We begin by discussing gradualism across fields such as biology, geology, and psychology before turning to its implications for behavior analysis. Andy contrasts the traditional tendency to examine discrete behavioral units with an approach that considers the flow of behavior across longer periods of time. From there, we take a closer look at prompts. Andy distinguishes prompts from cues and argues that prompts should be defined functionally—by whether they actually improve performance—rather than simply by their form. We also examine some familiar language surrounding prompt hierarchies. In particular, Andy questions terms such as "intrusiveness" and "restrictiveness" when those properties aren't tied to directly measurable dimensions. If we're fading a prompt, he argues, we should be able to say what we're actually changing: distance, force, volume, time, or another measurable property. This leads to a larger question: Is there evidence that particular types of prompts are universally easier or harder to fade? We discuss the implications of that question for commonly used least-to-most and most-to-least prompting systems, as well as what it might look like to assess prompt effectiveness at the level of the individual learner and skill rather than relying exclusively on predetermined hierarchies. Later in the conversation, we broaden the discussion to generalization and fluency. Andy argues that programming for generalization shouldn't begin only after a skill reaches mastery and that behavior analysts should attend not only to stimulus generalization, but also to important dimensions of the response itself—including rate, duration, speed, and fluency. Finally, we discuss "errorless learning." Andy questions whether the term provides enough information about what an instructor is actually doing and suggests that minimizing errors—while naming the specific procedures being used, such as fading or time delay—may be a more useful way to describe our teaching. Topics discussed include: What gradualism means in behavior analysis Prompts versus cues What makes a prompt a prompt Prompt fading versus changing prompt types Problems with terms such as "intrusiveness" and "restrictiveness" Whether prompt hierarchies should be individualized Assessing prompt effectiveness Stimulus and response generalization Accuracy versus fluency Programming for rate and speed Why generalization should be considered from the beginning of instruction "Errorless learning" versus minimizing errors The importance of describing teaching procedures in measurable, observable terms This conversation offers a useful challenge to several pieces of behavior-analytic terminology that can become so familiar that we stop asking exactly what they mean—and whether our language accurately describes what we're doing. If you want to hear more from Andy, you can join him, along with Lori Frost and other invited speakers from around the world on October 20th for the Pyramid FUNctional Conference 2026: Learning That Lasts. Explore practical strategies for supporting communication, independence, safety, access, and meaningful outcomes across the lifespan. This episode is brought to you by the following sponsors: Behavior University. Their mis

What does it look like to assess and treat severe problem behavior when safety concerns have become so significant that a student can no longer participate successfully in their typical school environment? In this episode, Dr. Cory Whelan joins me to discuss his work at Seasons Behavioral Services, where he and Dr. Kara LaCroix have developed an intensive model for assessing and treating dangerous behavior while helping students build the skills they'll need to return to less restrictive settings. Cory brings an unusual perspective to this work. He is dually certified as a speech-language pathologist and behavior analyst, and his career has taken him from challenging school environments in Washington, D.C., to doctoral training at Western New England University, where he worked with Dr. Greg Hanley and became involved in the development and application of practical functional assessment and skill-based treatment approaches. We talk about how Seasons works with students who may be waiting for an out-of-district placement—or whose behavior has become too dangerous for their current educational setting—and what happens during their approximately three-month intensive treatment model. Cory describes how his team uses a universal protocol when students first arrive, with an emphasis on minimizing evocative situations and creating conditions in which students can safely engage with staff before assessment begins. From there, we walk through their approach to caregiver interviews, practical functional assessment, and skill-based treatment. We also spend quite a bit of time discussing something that can sometimes get lost when talking about highly technical treatment procedures: clinical judgment. Cory explains why he trains staff not simply to follow a protocol mechanically, but to continually evaluate what is happening in front of them and make decisions that prioritize the safety and dignity of the person they're serving. We discuss what that looks like when problem behavior occurs unexpectedly, why backing off from a demand isn't necessarily a clinical failure, and how thoughtful decision-making fits within function-based treatment. We also get into some of the nuances of conducting effective functional assessment interviews, including: Building rapport before jumping into questions about problem behavior. Identifying precursors and subtle indicators that a situation is becoming difficult. Asking about activities caregivers or staff may have stopped attempting altogether. Using clinical judgment alongside structured interview tools. What it means when an analysis doesn't produce the behavior you expected to see. Finally, we discuss one of the hardest parts of intensive behavioral treatment: generalization and transition. A student may make tremendous progress in a highly trained treatment environment, but what happens when they move to a school or program with different staff, resources, and contingencies? Cory shares both the successes and limitations they've encountered when trying to support receiving programs and maintain treatment gains across settings. If you're interested in practical functional assessment and skill-based treatment—particularly how these approaches work with severe behavior in real-world clinical and educational environments—I think you'll get a lot out of this conversation. Resources Mentioned Seasons Behavioral Services (which, by the way, is an awesome place to work!) Practical Functional Assessment resources - we cited numerous papers in the PFA/SBT literature. Rather than link them all, you can find downloadable PDFs of all of them here. OG podcasts on PFA/SBT to get you up to speed. Sessions 1, 7, 20, 94, 160, 219, and 283. I could cite many more, but these will give you a great start. Shoutout to The Hawaii Association for Behavior Analysis. Sponsor Shoutouts CEUs from Behavioral Observations. Learn from your favorite podcast guests while you're commuting, walking the dog, or wha

Gestalt Language Processing (GLP) and Natural Language Acquisition (NLA) have become extraordinarily popular in speech-language pathology, particularly in conversations about autistic children who use echolalia. But what exactly is a "Gestalt Language Processor?" How would we know if someone is one? And perhaps most importantly, what does the research actually tell us about the claims and treatment recommendations associated with GLP and NLA? In this episode, I'm joined by speech-language pathologist Kathleen Oppenheimer, who has spent considerable time examining these questions through the lens of language science and psycholinguistics. Kathleen describes how she first encountered GLP and NLA on social media during the pandemic and why some of the claims she encountered immediately raised questions for her as someone trained in linguistics. We unpack the distinction between language production and language processing, and discuss why observing the words and phrases a child says cannot necessarily tell us how that child is processing language. We also explore an important nuance in this debate: Many practices commonly associated with NLA are quite reasonable—and in some cases very well aligned with established, evidence-based approaches. Following the child's lead, building strong therapeutic relationships, recognizing echolalia as meaningful communication, and honoring multiple forms of communication are all valuable practices. But those practices aren't unique to NLA. Kathleen contrasts NLA recommendations with research-supported approaches such as Enhanced Milieu Teaching, and explains why recommendations involving prompting, single-word models, verbs, and grammatical language input matter for language development. Along the way, we discuss: What GLP and NLA actually claim about language development. Why defining and reliably identifying a "Gestalt Language Processor" is more difficult than social media might suggest. The difference between what a child says and how researchers determine what a child is actually processing. What psycholinguistic methods such as the visual world paradigm can tell us about real-time language comprehension. Why echolalia can be meaningful communication without accepting the larger GLP/NLA framework. The substantial areas of common ground between NLA proponents and research-aligned language interventions. Why following a child's lead and honoring their communication does not require adopting NLA stages. How Enhanced Milieu Teaching differs from NLA-based intervention. Concerns about recommendations to avoid or delay modeling single words, verbs, and certain grammatical forms. What we know—and don't know—about the empirical evidence supporting GLP/NLA. How social media can turn nuanced clinical ideas into much broader claims. The potential costs of implementing unsupported interventions, even when those interventions appear benign. How clinicians can have productive conversations with colleagues and families who have embraced GLP/NLA. Why clear, jargon-free explanations of what we're doing in therapy—and why we're doing it—matter. One thing I especially appreciated about this conversation is that Kathleen doesn't approach this as a simple choice between being "for" or "against" GLP/NLA. Instead, she encourages us to pull apart the individual claims and practices, retain the components that are supported by evidence, and scrutinize those that aren't. For clinicians navigating an increasingly complicated landscape of research, social media, and rapidly spreading treatment approaches, I think that's an incredibly useful framework. Resources discussed in this episode: Kathleen's Instagram: @language_processing Kathleen's course: GLP and NLA: Analyzing the Claims and Evidence. Kathleen's website: Oppenheimer Speech and Language, LLC. Lorang, et al., (2026). A Response to Blanc and Colleagues' Viewpoint on Gestalt Language Processing and the Natural Language Acquisition Pr

Welcome to Session 336 The Behavioral Observations Podcast. Well technically, this is actually Session 199, and I wanted to take a minute to explain why you're hearing a rebroadcast. This conversation with Dr. Jason Travers originally aired back in September of 2022, but I've decided it's worth bringing back because, unfortunately, the issues surrounding Facilitated Communication haven't gone away. In fact, if anything, they've become more relevant. Over the past several years, we've continued to see heartwarming news stories and viral social media posts featuring non-speaking autistic individuals who appear to be communicating through methods such as Facilitated Communication, the Rapid Prompting Method, or Spelling to Communicate. These stories are understandably compelling. We all want people with significant communication challenges to have access to effective ways to express themselves. The problem is that hope, by itself, isn't evidence. Facilitated Communication has been studied extensively for decades, and the scientific record is remarkably consistent. The evidence has repeatedly shown that the messages produced through FC originate with the facilitator, not the individual. Despite that, these practices continue to find new audiences under different names and in different settings. As behavior analysts—and really, as anyone who cares about helping people with disabilities—we have an obligation to evaluate interventions based on evidence, even when the conclusions are uncomfortable. That's especially true when the potential harms are so significant, not only for the individuals using these methods, but also for their families, educators, and support teams. I also think this episode serves as a useful foundation because I plan to cover this topic in greater depth over the coming months, along with other interventions that have gained popularity despite lacking scientific support. Rather than assuming everyone has heard this discussion before, I thought it made sense to revisit what I think is one of the clearest introductions to the topic. So whether you're hearing this conversation for the first time or giving it another listen, I hope you'll pay particular attention to the history of Facilitated Communication, how it was scientifically evaluated, why those findings matter, and how Dr. Travers recommends discussing these issues with colleagues and families in a way that's both accurate and compassionate. Please note that I edited out the "how did you get into ABA segment," so you can get right to the heart of the topic. I'll include links to the original recording if you want to go back and hear more about Jason's background. Here are the shownotes from the original broadcast: If your social media consumption is anything like mine, you've likely seen some feel-good stories in the media as of late that report on non-speaking students - generally students with Autism - who are graduating from college, giving valedictorian speeches, and so forth. Unfortunately, what's often underpinning many of these cases is a form of Facilitated Communication, or FC for short. What is FC? Glad you asked! In today's episode, Dr. Jason Travers, Associate Professor at Temple University, joins me today to answer this very question (follow him on Twitter here). We covered the history of Facilitated Communication, the early scientific investigations that discredited this practice, FC's variants like the Rapid Prompting Method and Spelling to Communicate, where the practice of FC stands today, the harms that Facilitated Communication causes both users and caregivers, and how Behavior Analysts should both view and talk about these practices. Jason also provides the audience with a treasure trove of additional resources: Jason's Research Gate and Google Scholar pages.