Implications of behavioral momentum and academic achievement for students with behavior disorders: Theory, application, and practice

In this article, we explore the disconnect between applied behavioral research and classroommanaged applied behavioral research. Much has been written about the gap between experimental (basic) and applied research, but for the practitioner in the field the true gap lies between tightly controlled, externally supported applied research and teacher-managed, in-house supported applied research. To this end, the purpose of this paper is twofold. First, a model continuum is presented to guide researchers through the stages of theory development, basic research, applied research, and applied action research. Second, the theory and application of behavioral momentum is used to illustrate how this continuum can function within an applied behavioral framework. The results of this study suggest that an intervention developed from the theory of behavioral momentum can be implemented within the context of a classroom and affect positive change in academic compliance among children identified for learning/behavioral support. © 2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Much attention has been given to the disconnect between basic and applied research in behavior analysis (Mace, 1994; Mace & Wacker, 1994; Michael, 1980). In fact, Mace (1994) systematically outlined interrelated strategies to close the gap between research carried out in the laboratory (experimental analysis of behavior) and research carried out in the field (applied behavioral analysis). The goal to remedy this disconnect is to translate interventions that have demonstrated effects in the laboratory into viable interventions for humans in applied research (Mace, 1994). Of equal, and to the classroom teacher/practitioner of greater importance is the disconnect between applied research and “really” applied research. Too often, attempted replication of applied behavioral research to the classroom loses the experimental rigor reflected in the original applied work. Without this experimental rigor, findings in the classroom are noted as incidental, qualitative, or anecdotal, all lacking experimental control. These findings also do not provide viable information to support or refute the existing database from which the replication came. In essence, we in the classroom (a) sacrifice internal validity (experimental control) and ignore the theoryapplication link in an effort to (b) maximize external validity (generalization) and promote a cookbook approach to problem-solving. Common ground on the basic-applied continuum must be established. In some circles, this “really” applied research has been identified as an action research model (e.g., Calhoun, 1993; Sardo-Brown, Welsch, & Bolton, 1995) or a research lead teacher (RLT) model (Logan & Stein, 2001). Action research, as defined by Sardo-Brown et al. (1995) is (a) predicated on a practical problem (a necessary component in applied behavior analysis), and (b) carried out by the classroom teacher(s) (not a necessary component of applied behavior analysis). Calhoun (1993) defines such action research as individual teacher research or collaborative action research. From an applied behavioral position, two key elements seem to be missing from the action research and RLT literature. First, no mention of the need for understanding tactics of behavioral