任务分析中基线程序的比较。

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Emma Grauerholz-Fisher, Timothy R Vollmer, Jonathan K Fernand, Brandon C Perez, Haleh Amanieh, Kara Wunderlich, Kerri P Peters
{"title":"任务分析中基线程序的比较。","authors":"Emma Grauerholz-Fisher,&nbsp;Timothy R Vollmer,&nbsp;Jonathan K Fernand,&nbsp;Brandon C Perez,&nbsp;Haleh Amanieh,&nbsp;Kara Wunderlich,&nbsp;Kerri P Peters","doi":"10.1177/01454455231186585","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Several methods for assessing baseline performance in chained tasks have been outlined in the literature, including the fixed-opportunity probe (FOP) and the multiple-opportunity probe (MOP). Concerns have been raised regarding how each of these methods might change the baseline performance of a task, affecting the interpretation of experimental control. The purpose of the current study was to conduct a within-subject comparison of both the FOP and MOP procedures for children with autism performing daily living and self-care skills. Results indicated that, for most participants, the MOP resulted in elevated performance during baseline compared to the FOP, and that for some participants the MOP resulted in acquisition prior to direct training. Because of the possibility that the FOP might result in suppressed baseline performance, it is recommended that in most cases clinicians and researchers use the MOP when assessing baseline performance in chained tasks in order to obtain the most accurate data.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparison of Baseline Procedures in Task Analyses.\",\"authors\":\"Emma Grauerholz-Fisher,&nbsp;Timothy R Vollmer,&nbsp;Jonathan K Fernand,&nbsp;Brandon C Perez,&nbsp;Haleh Amanieh,&nbsp;Kara Wunderlich,&nbsp;Kerri P Peters\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01454455231186585\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Several methods for assessing baseline performance in chained tasks have been outlined in the literature, including the fixed-opportunity probe (FOP) and the multiple-opportunity probe (MOP). Concerns have been raised regarding how each of these methods might change the baseline performance of a task, affecting the interpretation of experimental control. The purpose of the current study was to conduct a within-subject comparison of both the FOP and MOP procedures for children with autism performing daily living and self-care skills. Results indicated that, for most participants, the MOP resulted in elevated performance during baseline compared to the FOP, and that for some participants the MOP resulted in acquisition prior to direct training. Because of the possibility that the FOP might result in suppressed baseline performance, it is recommended that in most cases clinicians and researchers use the MOP when assessing baseline performance in chained tasks in order to obtain the most accurate data.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/01454455231186585\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01454455231186585","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

文献中概述了几种评估链式任务基线性能的方法,包括固定机会探测(FOP)和多机会探测(MOP)。这些方法中的每一种都可能改变任务的基线性能,从而影响实验控制的解释,这引起了人们的关注。本研究的目的是对自闭症儿童日常生活和自我照顾技能的FOP和MOP程序进行受试者内比较。结果表明,对于大多数参与者来说,MOP在基线期间的表现比FOP高,并且对于一些参与者来说,MOP在直接训练之前导致习得。由于FOP可能会导致基线性能受到抑制,因此建议在大多数情况下,临床医生和研究人员在评估链式任务中的基线性能时使用MOP,以获得最准确的数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Comparison of Baseline Procedures in Task Analyses.

Several methods for assessing baseline performance in chained tasks have been outlined in the literature, including the fixed-opportunity probe (FOP) and the multiple-opportunity probe (MOP). Concerns have been raised regarding how each of these methods might change the baseline performance of a task, affecting the interpretation of experimental control. The purpose of the current study was to conduct a within-subject comparison of both the FOP and MOP procedures for children with autism performing daily living and self-care skills. Results indicated that, for most participants, the MOP resulted in elevated performance during baseline compared to the FOP, and that for some participants the MOP resulted in acquisition prior to direct training. Because of the possibility that the FOP might result in suppressed baseline performance, it is recommended that in most cases clinicians and researchers use the MOP when assessing baseline performance in chained tasks in order to obtain the most accurate data.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
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