ChatGPT与临床医生对ABA问题的回答:偏好、识别和同意程度。

IF 3 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Sara Peck, Conor O'Brien, Jason Bourret, Darryl Agostinelli
{"title":"ChatGPT与临床医生对ABA问题的回答:偏好、识别和同意程度。","authors":"Sara Peck, Conor O'Brien, Jason Bourret, Darryl Agostinelli","doi":"10.1002/jaba.70029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The potential utility of artificial intelligence (AI) in applied behavior analysis (ABA) is an emerging discussion. There has been limited investigation on the current use, acceptability, or limitations of common AI tools within the field. The current study contributes to these topics by comparing expert clinician and AI (ChatGPT-4) responses to questions specific to ABA. Fifty-one behavior analysts were recruited as participants and indicated their preference for and level of agreement with ChatGPT-4 versus human clinical team responses in a blind assessment. Next, participants' distinctions between the two response sources were evaluated. Finally, participants were asked about their current use of AI to aid in their behavior-analytic work. Participants significantly preferred and agreed more with ChatGPT-4 responses than with human responses. Participants could not reliably discriminate between ChatGPT-4 and human responses. Some of the participants (15.69% of sample) indicated they have used AI to assist in aspects of behavior-analytic work.</p>","PeriodicalId":14983,"journal":{"name":"Journal of applied behavior analysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"ChatGPT versus clinician responses to questions in ABA: Preference, identification, and level of agreement.\",\"authors\":\"Sara Peck, Conor O'Brien, Jason Bourret, Darryl Agostinelli\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jaba.70029\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The potential utility of artificial intelligence (AI) in applied behavior analysis (ABA) is an emerging discussion. There has been limited investigation on the current use, acceptability, or limitations of common AI tools within the field. The current study contributes to these topics by comparing expert clinician and AI (ChatGPT-4) responses to questions specific to ABA. Fifty-one behavior analysts were recruited as participants and indicated their preference for and level of agreement with ChatGPT-4 versus human clinical team responses in a blind assessment. Next, participants' distinctions between the two response sources were evaluated. Finally, participants were asked about their current use of AI to aid in their behavior-analytic work. Participants significantly preferred and agreed more with ChatGPT-4 responses than with human responses. Participants could not reliably discriminate between ChatGPT-4 and human responses. Some of the participants (15.69% of sample) indicated they have used AI to assist in aspects of behavior-analytic work.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14983,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of applied behavior analysis\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of applied behavior analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.70029\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of applied behavior analysis","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.70029","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

摘要

人工智能(AI)在应用行为分析(ABA)中的潜在效用是一个新兴的讨论。对该领域内常见人工智能工具的当前使用、可接受性或局限性的调查有限。目前的研究通过比较专家临床医生和人工智能(ChatGPT-4)对ABA特定问题的回答来促进这些主题。招募了51名行为分析师作为参与者,并在盲评估中表明他们对ChatGPT-4的偏好和与人类临床团队反应的一致程度。接下来,评估参与者在两种反应来源之间的区别。最后,参与者被问及他们目前在行为分析工作中使用人工智能的情况。与人类的反应相比,参与者明显更喜欢和同意ChatGPT-4的反应。参与者不能可靠地区分ChatGPT-4和人类的反应。一些参与者(15.69%的样本)表示他们已经使用人工智能来协助行为分析工作的各个方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
ChatGPT versus clinician responses to questions in ABA: Preference, identification, and level of agreement.

The potential utility of artificial intelligence (AI) in applied behavior analysis (ABA) is an emerging discussion. There has been limited investigation on the current use, acceptability, or limitations of common AI tools within the field. The current study contributes to these topics by comparing expert clinician and AI (ChatGPT-4) responses to questions specific to ABA. Fifty-one behavior analysts were recruited as participants and indicated their preference for and level of agreement with ChatGPT-4 versus human clinical team responses in a blind assessment. Next, participants' distinctions between the two response sources were evaluated. Finally, participants were asked about their current use of AI to aid in their behavior-analytic work. Participants significantly preferred and agreed more with ChatGPT-4 responses than with human responses. Participants could not reliably discriminate between ChatGPT-4 and human responses. Some of the participants (15.69% of sample) indicated they have used AI to assist in aspects of behavior-analytic work.

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
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信