An Overview of Morris et al., A Practitioner’s Guide to Measuring Procedural Fidelity

On Doing What We Say: An Overview of Morris et al., A Practitioner’s Guide to Measuring Procedural Fidelity 

Written by: Dr. Claire St. Peter, WVU Eberly Family Professor of Outstanding Service and Chair of the WVU Department of Psychology

It is critical that behavioral interventions are not only evidence-based but also are used as intended. Therefore, procedural fidelity (i.e., the extent to which procedures are implemented as designed) stands as a cornerstone of effective and ethical behavior-analytic practice. Morris and colleagues (2024) offer essential guidance through the complexities of measuring procedural fidelity, contributing significantly to both scholarship and practice. 

In their recent article, A Practitioner’s Guide to Measuring Procedural Fidelity, Morris, Jones, and Oliveira provide a clear, step-by-step framework that is immediately applicable in clinical settings. The article tackles the nuanced and often under-addressed issue of fidelity measurement, including ways that fidelity measures can be meaningfully incorporated across a range of practice contexts while maintaining an emphasis on direct observation as the gold standard for fidelity data. 

The authors outline six critical steps for creating individualized procedural fidelity measurement systems: (1) task analyzing treatment procedures into measurable units, (2) assigning specific measures to each treatment component, (3) planning direct observation strategically, (4) collecting fidelity data systematically, (5) analyzing and interpreting fidelity data meaningfully, and (6) intervening effectively when fidelity issues are identified. Those steps might make it sound easy, but the authors provide great advice for how to avoid common pitfalls. 

One of the article's standout strengths is its practicality and depth. It meticulously describes each step and anticipates common challenges practitioners face, such as choosing appropriate measures (e.g., frequency, duration, latency, interresponse time) and managing logistical issues like observation timing and reactivity. The clear examples provided—including both skill-acquisition and behavior-reduction procedures—make the content applicable and provides readers with meaningful action steps.  

Morris and colleagues acknowledge the complexities and idiosyncrasies inherent in real-world treatment contexts. Practitioners learn not just how to build and use fidelity measures, but how various ways of analyzing the data might obscure significant errors in treatment implementation and how to use the data to improve implementer performance. 

Beyond methodology, the article reminds us of the ethical dimensions inherent in procedural fidelity. It underscores that low fidelity can severely compromise treatment outcomes and may inadvertently compromise client care, emphasizing the ethical imperative for frequent and systematic monitoring. 

Ultimately, Morris, Jones, and Oliveira offer behavior analysts a useful overview of how to address fidelity comprehensively, effectively bridging the gap between research and practice. The article provides an excellent foundation for those who may feel unsure of their skills related to fidelity measurement or who are unsure of how to incorporate fidelity measures into busy service-provision environments. Even those well-versed in fidelity measurement will appreciate the nuance and detail that the authors suggest for ways to “level up” existing fidelity measures.  

References 

Morris, C., Jones, S. H., & Oliveira, J. P. (2024). A practitioner’s guide to measuring procedural fidelity. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 17, 643–655.