A systematic review of social-validity assessments in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis: 2010–2020

IF 2.9 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Erin S. Leif, Nadine Kelenc-Gasior, Bradley S. Bloomfield, Brett Furlonger, Russell A. Fox
{"title":"A systematic review of social-validity assessments in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis: 2010–2020","authors":"Erin S. Leif,&nbsp;Nadine Kelenc-Gasior,&nbsp;Bradley S. Bloomfield,&nbsp;Brett Furlonger,&nbsp;Russell A. Fox","doi":"10.1002/jaba.1092","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>We conducted a systematic review of studies published in the <i>Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis</i> between 2010 and 2020 to identify reports of social validity. A total of 160 studies (17.60%) published during this time included a measure of social validity. For each study, we extracted data on (a) the dimensions of social validity, (b) the methods used for collecting social-validity data, (c) the respondents, and (d) when social-validity data were collected. Most social-validity assessments measured the acceptability of intervention procedures and outcomes, with fewer evaluating goals. The most common method for collecting social validity data was Likert-type rating scales, followed by non-Likert-type questionnaires. In most studies, the direct recipients of the intervention provided feedback on social validity. Social-validity assessment data were often collected at the conclusion of the study. We provide examples of social-validity measurement methods, discuss their strengths and limitations, and provide recommendations for improving the future collection and reporting of social-validity data.</p>","PeriodicalId":14983,"journal":{"name":"Journal of applied behavior analysis","volume":"57 3","pages":"542-559"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jaba.1092","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of applied behavior analysis","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jaba.1092","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We conducted a systematic review of studies published in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis between 2010 and 2020 to identify reports of social validity. A total of 160 studies (17.60%) published during this time included a measure of social validity. For each study, we extracted data on (a) the dimensions of social validity, (b) the methods used for collecting social-validity data, (c) the respondents, and (d) when social-validity data were collected. Most social-validity assessments measured the acceptability of intervention procedures and outcomes, with fewer evaluating goals. The most common method for collecting social validity data was Likert-type rating scales, followed by non-Likert-type questionnaires. In most studies, the direct recipients of the intervention provided feedback on social validity. Social-validity assessment data were often collected at the conclusion of the study. We provide examples of social-validity measurement methods, discuss their strengths and limitations, and provide recommendations for improving the future collection and reporting of social-validity data.

Abstract Image

应用行为分析杂志》中的社会有效性评估系统回顾:2010-2020 年。
我们对 2010 年至 2020 年期间发表在《应用行为分析杂志》上的研究进行了系统回顾,以确定有关社会有效性的报告。在此期间发表的研究中,共有 160 项(17.60%)包含了社会效度测量。对于每项研究,我们都提取了以下方面的数据:(a)社会有效性的维度;(b)收集社会有效性数据的方法;(c)受访者;以及(d)收集社会有效性数据的时间。大多数社会效度评估衡量的是干预程序和结果的可接受性,而对目标进行评估的较少。收集社会有效性数据最常用的方法是李克特式评分量表,其次是非李克特式问卷。在大多数研究中,干预措施的直接接受者都会对社会效度提供反馈。社会有效性评估数据通常在研究结束时收集。我们提供了社会效度测量方法的实例,讨论了这些方法的优点和局限性,并为今后改进社会效度数据的收集和报告提出了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of applied behavior analysis
Journal of applied behavior analysis PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
20.70%
发文量
61
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信