行为分析中风险比率的实际应用。

IF 2.5 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Perspectives on Behavior Science Pub Date : 2024-10-25 eCollection Date: 2024-12-01 DOI:10.1007/s40614-024-00425-1
P Raymond Joslyn, Samuel L Morris
{"title":"行为分析中风险比率的实际应用。","authors":"P Raymond Joslyn, Samuel L Morris","doi":"10.1007/s40614-024-00425-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Joslyn and Morris (2024) recently published a tutorial on adapting and applying risk ratios to within-subject behavioral data. Newland (2024; this issue) offers a commentary on Joslyn and Morris that expands the discussion of risk ratios and how they are typically applied in group comparison research. He is also critical of the approach described by Joslyn and Morris, and advocates against its use primarily because it differs from the traditional calculation. Although we agree with many of Newland's assertions about the benefits of the traditional approach, we disagree that it is the only method of evaluating relative risk that may be useful to behavior analysts. In this response to Newland, we summarize and respond to his concerns, discuss our own concerns with his perspective, consider variables that may affect the relative utility of the two approaches, and provide concluding remarks.</p>","PeriodicalId":44993,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Behavior Science","volume":"47 4","pages":"815-826"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11582286/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pragmatic Application of Risk Ratios in Behavior Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"P Raymond Joslyn, Samuel L Morris\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40614-024-00425-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Joslyn and Morris (2024) recently published a tutorial on adapting and applying risk ratios to within-subject behavioral data. Newland (2024; this issue) offers a commentary on Joslyn and Morris that expands the discussion of risk ratios and how they are typically applied in group comparison research. He is also critical of the approach described by Joslyn and Morris, and advocates against its use primarily because it differs from the traditional calculation. Although we agree with many of Newland's assertions about the benefits of the traditional approach, we disagree that it is the only method of evaluating relative risk that may be useful to behavior analysts. In this response to Newland, we summarize and respond to his concerns, discuss our own concerns with his perspective, consider variables that may affect the relative utility of the two approaches, and provide concluding remarks.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44993,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Perspectives on Behavior Science\",\"volume\":\"47 4\",\"pages\":\"815-826\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11582286/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Perspectives on Behavior Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-024-00425-1\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives on Behavior Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-024-00425-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Joslyn 和 Morris(2024 年)最近出版了一本教程,介绍如何将风险比率调整和应用于受试者内部行为数据。纽兰(Newland,2024 年;本期)对乔斯林和莫里斯的文章进行了评论,扩展了对风险比率及其在群体比较研究中的典型应用的讨论。他还对 Joslyn 和 Morris 所描述的方法提出了批评,并主张反对使用这种方法,主要是因为它不同于传统的计算方法。尽管我们同意纽兰关于传统方法的许多好处的论断,但我们不同意这是唯一对行为分析师有 用的相对风险评估方法。在这篇给纽兰的回复中,我们总结并回应了他的担忧,讨论了我们自己对他的观点的担忧,考虑了可能影响两种方法相对效用的变量,并给出了结论性意见。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Pragmatic Application of Risk Ratios in Behavior Analysis.

Joslyn and Morris (2024) recently published a tutorial on adapting and applying risk ratios to within-subject behavioral data. Newland (2024; this issue) offers a commentary on Joslyn and Morris that expands the discussion of risk ratios and how they are typically applied in group comparison research. He is also critical of the approach described by Joslyn and Morris, and advocates against its use primarily because it differs from the traditional calculation. Although we agree with many of Newland's assertions about the benefits of the traditional approach, we disagree that it is the only method of evaluating relative risk that may be useful to behavior analysts. In this response to Newland, we summarize and respond to his concerns, discuss our own concerns with his perspective, consider variables that may affect the relative utility of the two approaches, and provide concluding remarks.

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
Perspectives on Behavior Science
Perspectives on Behavior Science PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
10.00%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: Perspectives on Behavior Science is an official publication of the Association for Behavior Analysis International. It is published quarterly, and in addition to its articles on theoretical, experimental, and applied topics in behavior analysis, this journal also includes literature reviews, re-interpretations of published data, and articles on behaviorism as a philosophy.
×
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