学校功能性沟通培训:对生态有效性证据的系统分析。

IF 2 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Laura C Chezan, Autumn M Bauer, Meka N McCammon, Erik Drasgow
{"title":"学校功能性沟通培训:对生态有效性证据的系统分析。","authors":"Laura C Chezan, Autumn M Bauer, Meka N McCammon, Erik Drasgow","doi":"10.1177/01454455241264816","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Ecological validity refers to the meaningfulness or practical significance of research outcomes in everyday settings or the extent to which an intervention can be implemented by typical people during naturally occurring opportunities. In education, ecological validity may contribute to the adoption of interventions by teachers working with students in school settings. Our purpose in this review was to examine the evidence for ecological validity of functional communication training (FCT) used to address challenging behavior in school-age individuals with disabilities. We reviewed 19 single-case experimental design (SCED) studies published between 1985 and 2023. First, we used the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Standards to evaluate the empirical evidence of each study. Second, we evaluated the extent to which behavioral assessment and FCT procedures were described in the 15 studies that met the WWC Standards. Third, we conducted a systematic analysis of the evidence for ecological validity of behavioral assessment and FCT. Results indicate that 95% of the SCED studies met the WWC Standards. The description of procedures was complete for 50% of the behavioral assessments and for 11% of the FCT. The overall evidence for ecological validity was moderate for 16.7% and low for 83.3% of the behavioral assessments. The evidence for ecological validity for all FCT procedures was low. Future research and implications related to ecological validity are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48037,"journal":{"name":"Behavior Modification","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Functional Communication Training in Schools: A Systematic Analysis of the Evidence for Ecological Validity.\",\"authors\":\"Laura C Chezan, Autumn M Bauer, Meka N McCammon, Erik Drasgow\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01454455241264816\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Ecological validity refers to the meaningfulness or practical significance of research outcomes in everyday settings or the extent to which an intervention can be implemented by typical people during naturally occurring opportunities. In education, ecological validity may contribute to the adoption of interventions by teachers working with students in school settings. Our purpose in this review was to examine the evidence for ecological validity of functional communication training (FCT) used to address challenging behavior in school-age individuals with disabilities. We reviewed 19 single-case experimental design (SCED) studies published between 1985 and 2023. First, we used the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Standards to evaluate the empirical evidence of each study. Second, we evaluated the extent to which behavioral assessment and FCT procedures were described in the 15 studies that met the WWC Standards. Third, we conducted a systematic analysis of the evidence for ecological validity of behavioral assessment and FCT. Results indicate that 95% of the SCED studies met the WWC Standards. The description of procedures was complete for 50% of the behavioral assessments and for 11% of the FCT. The overall evidence for ecological validity was moderate for 16.7% and low for 83.3% of the behavioral assessments. The evidence for ecological validity for all FCT procedures was low. Future research and implications related to ecological validity are discussed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48037,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Behavior Modification\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Behavior Modification\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/01454455241264816\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavior Modification","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01454455241264816","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

生态效度指的是研究成果在日常环境中的意义或实际意义,或者是典型人群在自然发生的机会中实施干预措施的程度。在教育领域,生态效度可能有助于教师在学校环境中对学生采取干预措施。本综述旨在研究功能性沟通训练(FCT)用于解决学龄残疾儿童挑战性行为的生态有效性证据。我们回顾了 1985 年至 2023 年间发表的 19 项单例实验设计(SCED)研究。首先,我们使用 "有效信息交换所(WWC)标准 "来评估每项研究的实证证据。其次,我们评估了符合 WWC 标准的 15 项研究中对行为评估和 FCT 程序的描述程度。第三,我们对行为评估和 FCT 的生态有效性证据进行了系统分析。结果表明,95% 的 SCED 研究符合 WWC 标准。50%的行为评估和 11% 的 FCT 的程序描述是完整的。16.7% 的行为评估和 83.3% 的心理测验的生态有效性分别为中度和低度。所有 FCT 程序的生态有效性证据均较低。本文讨论了与生态效度相关的未来研究和影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Functional Communication Training in Schools: A Systematic Analysis of the Evidence for Ecological Validity.

Ecological validity refers to the meaningfulness or practical significance of research outcomes in everyday settings or the extent to which an intervention can be implemented by typical people during naturally occurring opportunities. In education, ecological validity may contribute to the adoption of interventions by teachers working with students in school settings. Our purpose in this review was to examine the evidence for ecological validity of functional communication training (FCT) used to address challenging behavior in school-age individuals with disabilities. We reviewed 19 single-case experimental design (SCED) studies published between 1985 and 2023. First, we used the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Standards to evaluate the empirical evidence of each study. Second, we evaluated the extent to which behavioral assessment and FCT procedures were described in the 15 studies that met the WWC Standards. Third, we conducted a systematic analysis of the evidence for ecological validity of behavioral assessment and FCT. Results indicate that 95% of the SCED studies met the WWC Standards. The description of procedures was complete for 50% of the behavioral assessments and for 11% of the FCT. The overall evidence for ecological validity was moderate for 16.7% and low for 83.3% of the behavioral assessments. The evidence for ecological validity for all FCT procedures was low. Future research and implications related to ecological validity are discussed.

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
Behavior Modification
Behavior Modification PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
期刊介绍: For two decades, researchers and practitioners have turned to Behavior Modification for current scholarship on applied behavior modification. Starting in 1995, in addition to keeping you informed on assessment and modification techniques relevant to psychiatric, clinical, education, and rehabilitation settings, Behavior Modification revised and expanded its focus to include treatment manuals and program descriptions. With these features you can follow the process of clinical research and see how it can be applied to your own work. And, with Behavior Modification, successful clinical and administrative experts have an outlet for sharing their solutions in the field.
×
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