If you’re working in ABA, you’ve probably encountered strong opinions about Discrete Trial Training. Some colleagues dismiss it as outdated, others rely on it heavily, and you might be wondering where DTT actually fits in modern evidence-based practice. Let’s have an honest conversation about what this teaching method really is and how it functions in contemporary ABA programming.

What’s behind the controversy around Discrete Trial Training?

The divide often stems from misunderstandings about what DTT is designed to do. Critics argue it fails to teach skills in natural environments and creates robotic, prompt-dependent responses. Supporters point to its evidence base for skill acquisition. But here’s the thing – both sides are often talking past each other because they’re not discussing the same implementation of DTT.

When most people hear “Discrete Trial Training,” they picture a child sitting at a table with a therapist holding flashcards, running through endless drills. This stereotype has unfortunately shaped much of the criticism around DTT, and frankly, it’s not representative of how DTT should be implemented today.

So what is DTT actually supposed to look like?

At its core, DTT is incredibly straightforward: it’s a discriminative stimulus (often presented as instruction from a teacher), a response from a student, and feedback. That’s it. It doesn’t have any implications for where it’s delivered or the materials or stimuli used. It’s simply the three-termed contingency (SD->R<-SR). The key insight that many practitioners miss is that anything can be arranged in a discrete trial format. Think about it this way – you can weave DTT into getting dressed, emptying the dishwasher, or any daily routine where there's a clear instruction, response, and consequence. These routines actually provide perfect frameworks for discrete trials because the chain of tasks is well known to everyone involved, no new materials are required, and simple objectives can be embedded that promote cooperation and interaction. This shift in thinking changes everything about how we approach DTT implementation.

What does the evidence actually tell us about DTT?

DTT has been extensively studied and empirically validated for teaching new behaviors and skills to children with autism. The research consistently shows effectiveness across language, communication, social and academic domains. But here’s what’s crucial for us as practitioners – the evidence also shows that good ABA programming shouldn’t exclusively rely on DTT or any single technique.

Rather than debating whether DTT works, we should be asking how to use it strategically within comprehensive programming that includes naturalistic interventions.

Why does DTT work?

What makes DTT most effective is the arrangement itself, which allows for successive learning opportunities. The arrangement allows for quick feedback and practice with errorless teaching, prompting and prompt fading, which allows for reinforcement contingent on correct responding.  Good DTT does not allow repeated failures. 

The predictability helps many learners focus and engage more effectively. When you know what’s expected and when you’ll get feedback, learning becomes less stressful and more achievable. This is especially crucial for learners who struggle in less structured environments.

How do we address concerns about creating “robotic” responses?

This criticism usually points to poor implementation rather than inherent problems with the method. DTT becomes problematic when practitioners fail to plan for generalization, over-rely on artificial prompts, or focus on rote responding rather than meaningful skill development.

Quality DTT implementation includes systematic prompt fading from the beginning. You’re not trying to create prompt dependence – you’re using prompts strategically to ensure success while planning their removal. The goal is always independent, flexible responding.

What’s the biggest mistake practitioners make with DTT?

Using it for everything. DTT excels at systematic skill acquisition, particularly when you’re establishing new behaviors that benefit from repetition and environmental control. But it’s not appropriate for every learning objective or every learner.

Some skills are better taught through natural environment teaching, incidental teaching, or peer-mediated interventions. The art of good ABA practice is knowing when to use which approach based on your learner’s needs, the target skill, and the context.

How do we stay current with DTT best practices?

The field continues evolving. What constituted best practice even five years ago may not reflect current standards. Stay connected with the research literature, seek supervision from experienced practitioners who understand both the strengths and limitations of DTT, and don’t be afraid to adapt your approach based on new evidence.

Most importantly, remember that effective DTT requires understanding both the science behind the method and the art of applying it skillfully to help clients achieve meaningful outcomes.

Where does DTT fit in your practice?

DTT remains a valuable tool in comprehensive ABA programming when used thoughtfully and strategically. The key is moving beyond stereotypes and outdated implementation models toward flexible application that serves learner needs and family priorities.

Rather than asking whether you should use DTT, ask how you can use it most effectively as part of a broader intervention approach. How do you currently integrate DTT with other teaching methods in your programming? What challenges have you encountered, and how have you addressed them?

The goal isn’t perfect DTT implementation – it’s using DTT as one component of effective, individualized programming that helps our clients develop skills that truly matter in their lives.