Chaining

Submitted To: Ma’am Nighat Altaf

Submitted By: Hifsa Bibi

Roll no: 254

Program: BS

Department: Psychology Semester: 7th

Government Girls Degree College No. 2, Haripur, KPK, Pakistan

Chaining:

Chaining is a behavioral therapeutic technique that involves breaking down a complex behavior
or task into smaller, manageable steps (known as "links") and teaching each step in sequence. It
is used to teach individuals new behaviors, particularly those that are complex or involve
multiple components, by reinforcing each step in the chain until the entire sequence is learned.

Chaining is a behavioral technique used in psychology and behavior therapy that involves
linking together a sequence of individual behaviors or steps to form a complex behavior or skill.
Each behavior in the sequence (referred to as a "link") is taught and reinforced one by one, until
the individual can perform the entire chain independently.

Types:

There are two main types of chaining:

1. Forward Chaining:

In forward chaining, the therapist begins by teaching the first step of the behavior and reinforces
it until the individual can perform it independently. Once the first step is mastered, the second
step is added, and reinforcement continues for the first and second steps together. This process
continues, gradually adding one step at a time until the entire sequence is learned.

Example (Teaching a Student to Solve a Math Problem):

1. Step 1: Read the problem.

2. Step 2: Identify the numbers involved.
3. Step 3: Choose the correct operation (addition, subtraction, etc.).
4. Step 4: Solve the equation.
5. Step 5: Write down the answer.

In forward chaining, the student first learns how to read and understand the problem, then
gradually works through the individual steps to solve the equation. Reinforcement is given after
mastering each step.

2. Backward Chaining:

In backward chaining, the therapist begins with the last step in the sequence and reinforces it
until it is mastered. Once the last step is learned, the second-to-last step is taught, and
reinforcement occurs for both steps. This process continues until the entire chain is learned,
starting from the final step and moving backward through the sequence.
Example (Teaching a Child to Clean Their Room):

1. Step 1: Teach the child to put away the toys.

2. Step 2: Teach the child to make the bed.
3. Step 3: Teach the child to put clothes in the laundry.
4. Step 4: Teach the child to pick up trash or food wrappers.
5. Step 5: Teach the child to straighten up the room and sweep.

In backward chaining, the child starts with the last step, which could be putting away toys or
cleaning the floor. As they master the last step, the child is taught the earlier steps, ensuring they
can do the whole routine eventually.

Why Use Chaining?

Chaining helps individuals learn complex behaviors by focusing on the individual steps that
make up the whole task. It's often used for individuals with developmental disabilities, autism, or
other conditions that may interfere with learning complex or multi-step tasks. It can also be used
to teach a variety of skills, including self-care tasks (e.g., brushing teeth), social skills, academic
skills, or vocational skills.

Article Review:

Title:

“Chaining Techniques: A Systematic Literature Review and Best Practice

Recommendations”
By: Kelsey Lillyon
On: 12, 2020

Abstract:
Chaining is a technique that has been widely used across various disciplines to teach individuals
diagnosed with developmental disabilities to complete complex behaviors. Given the amount of
research conducted on these procedures and how commonly they are used in applied settings, a
systematic literature review was conducted to provide a summary of current research, best
practice guidelines, and directions for future research. Studies that (a) discussed the types of
chaining and procedural variations, (b) compared chaining procedures, and (c) provided
guidelines for future implementation were included in this literature review. These articles were
then reviewed to provide a summary of current chaining techniques and procedural variations,
comparative effectiveness of chaining procedures, and best practice recommendations for
clinicians.

Introduction:

This paper discusses the use of chaining as a widely applied behavior analytic method to teach
various skills across different populations. Chaining involves breaking down complex behaviors
into smaller, manageable steps (called a task analysis) and teaching each step individually, with
reinforcement and prompting, until the entire sequence is learned. Each step in the sequence is
reinforced and acts as a discriminative stimulus for the next step, with the final completion of the
chain producing reinforcement that strengthens all previous responses.Chaining is particularly
useful for teaching complex tasks like independent living skills (e.g., hand washing, recipe
following) and self-help tasks. It has been effective in teaching various skills, such as
vocational, self-help, and leisure skills. Techniques like prompting, modeling, and error
correction are often combined with chaining to support the acquisition of complex behaviors
and promote independence.The review highlights the effectiveness of chaining in applied
settings, but notes that much of the existing research on chaining is dated and contains gaps or
inconsistencies. The paper calls for an in-depth, updated review to provide evidence-based
strategies for clinicians and suggest future directions for research to further improve behavior-
analytic technologies.In summary, the paper aims to evaluate the current research on chaining,
provide best practice recommendations, and suggest areas for future exploration in the field of
behavior analysis.

Methodology:
To identify articles for the review, several methods were employed. Two electronic databases,
Google Scholar and PsycINFO, were searched, along with a specific search of the Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis. Additionally, forward and backward searches were conducted on
key research articles to find relevant studies. Search terms like "chaining", "response chaining",
"chaining methods", "chaining techniques", "comparison", and "procedural variations" were used
in various combinations to locate articles.

Discussion:
The review of current literature on chaining procedures reveals that they are well-established and
effective teaching methods across various disciplines, particularly within behavior analysis. The
procedures, including Forward Chaining (FC), Backward Chaining (BC), and Total Task
Chaining (TTC), are empirically supported for teaching a variety of skills, such as
communication, self-help, vocational tasks, and leisure skills.

The literature also explores procedural variations within chaining, such as the use of
prompting hierarchies, leap aheads, and completion methods, which enhance clinical
applications. Research comparing different chaining methods and procedural variations exists,
but inconsistencies in the comparisons make it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about
which method is superior. Some studies suggest no significant difference between methods like
FC and BC, while others support the effectiveness of certain variations, though these findings are
limited in scope.

The review highlights that while some research suggests certain chaining methods may be
superior, other studies indicate little difference between them. This inconsistency calls into
question the application of these procedures in real-world settings. Given the limited and
inconsistent research, no firm conclusions can be drawn about the effectiveness of specific
chaining methods or procedural variations.
Strengths of the Review:

1. Comprehensive Overview: The review provides a broad summary of the current

research on chaining techniques, covering various types of chaining, procedural
variations, and comparisons of methods. This allows readers to gain a thorough
understanding of the available techniques and practices.
2. Focus on Best Practices: By examining the best practice guidelines for clinicians, the
review helps practitioners in applied behavior analysis select the most effective methods
for teaching complex behaviors to individuals with developmental disabilities. This
ensures that real-world applications are based on evidence and informed by research.
3. Identifying Gaps in Research: The review highlights inconsistencies and gaps in the
existing literature, particularly regarding the comparative effectiveness of different
chaining methods and procedural variations. This can drive future research efforts to
address these areas and improve the field’s understanding.
4. Relevance to Applied Settings: The review emphasizes the importance of research
conducted within the field of behavior analysis, which directly impacts the practical
application of chaining techniques in clinical settings. This helps ensure that clinicians
can use evidence-based practices when working with clients.
5. Future Research Directions: The review provides clear recommendations for future
research, such as exploring the effectiveness of different chaining methods for various
tasks, learner characteristics, and instructional preferences. These directions can help
guide further studies and contribute to the development of better strategies for teaching
complex behaviors.

Limitations of the Review:

1. Limited Scope of Current Literature: While the review provides valuable insights, it
acknowledges that much of the existing research comparing chaining methods is dated
and may be inconsistent or incomplete. This makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions
about which methods are most effective.
2. Lack of Rigorous Comparisons: The review points out that comparative studies of
chaining methods often suffer from inconsistencies, such as differences in which methods
are being compared. This lack of standardized comparison limits the ability to
conclusively determine the most effective chaining technique.
3. Narrow Focus on Behavior Analytic Journals: The review mentions that much of the
relevant research exists outside of behavior analytic journals, which could mean that
important studies or perspectives from other fields may be overlooked, limiting the scope
of the review’s conclusions.
4. Insufficient Examination of Procedural Variations: While the review discusses
procedural variations within chaining (e.g., prompting hierarchies and leap aheads), it
notes that there is limited research on the superiority of these variations. This lack of
depth in exploring the effectiveness of variations leaves some aspects of chaining
techniques underexplored.
5. Exclusion of Non-Peer-Reviewed Sources: The review focuses on peer-reviewed
literature, which may exclude valuable insights from non-peer-reviewed sources, such as
theses or dissertations, that might contain relevant findings.
 6. Generalizability to Diverse Populations: Although chaining is used for individuals with
developmental disabilities, the review does not deeply explore how effective chaining
procedures are across different populations, contexts, or environments. This may limit its
generalizability to a broader range of learners or tasks.

Future recommendation:

Future research should focus on addressing the inconsistencies in the current literature regarding
the comparative effectiveness of different chaining methods. Replicating existing studies could
provide additional evidence, but the most effective approach might be to systematically
compare chaining methods across different response classes. This could lead to a clearer
hierarchy of methods and help refine procedural variations. Much of the research comparing
chaining methods and variations is found outside behavior analytic journals, so researchers
within the field should work to expand the literature. This will help guide clinicians in selecting
the most effective, evidence-based chaining procedures for applied settings.

Future research directions include exploring which chaining methods are best suited for specific
response chains, as well as factors like task type, learner characteristics, prompting methods,
and instructional preferences that may influence the effectiveness of chaining procedures.
Addressing these areas will help improve the application of chaining methods in behavior
analytic practice.

Conclusion:

Although a well-established procedure within the literature, the present analysis shows
limitations to the current chaining literature. Areas of future research, as well as lack of ability to
provide best practice recommendations are highlighted. The present analysis also provides many
areas of research to focus on to further expand our knowledge and application of these
procedures within behavior analysis. Conducting this research can provide clearer best practice
recommendations to practitioners to better inform treatment decisions and implement
empirically-supported intervention recommendations.

References:

Ash, D.W., & Holding, D.H. (1990). Backward versus forward chaining in the acquisition of a keyboard
skill. Human Factors, 32(2), 139-146.

Bancroft, S.L., Weiss, J.S., Libby, M.E., Ahearn, W.H. (2011). A comparison of procedural variations in
teaching behavior chains: Manual guidance, trainer completion, and no completion on untrained steps.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44(3), 559-569. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2011.44-559

Chazin, K.T., Bartelmay, D.N., Lambert, J.M., & Houchins-Juárez, N.J. (2017). Brief report: Clustered
forward chaining with embedded mastery probes to teach recipe following. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 47(4), 1249-1255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-017-3038-z

Cooper, J.O., Heron, T.E., & Heward, W.L. (2020). Applied Behavior Analysis (3rd edition). Pearson
Education.
 Dollar, C.A., Fredrick, L.D., Alberto, P.A., & Luke, J.K. (2012). Using simultaneous prompting to teach
independent living and leisure skills to adults with severe intellectual disabilities. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 33, 189-195.

Drysdale, B., Lee, C.Y.Q., Anderson, A., Moore, D.W. (2014). Using video modeling incorporating
animations to teach toileting to two children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Developmental
and Physical Disabilities, 27(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-014-9405-1

Griffin, A. K., Wolery, M., & Schuster, J. W. (1992). Triadic instruction of chained food preparation
responses: Acquisition and observational learning. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25(1), 193–204.
https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1992.25-193