基于应用行为分析的评估的效度和信度证据:系统综述。

IF 2 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Behavior Modification Pub Date : 2023-01-01 Epub Date: 2022-07-06 DOI:10.1177/01454455221098151
Kristen L Padilla, Regan Weston, Grant B Morgan, Providence Lively, Nicole O'Guinn
{"title":"基于应用行为分析的评估的效度和信度证据:系统综述。","authors":"Kristen L Padilla,&nbsp;Regan Weston,&nbsp;Grant B Morgan,&nbsp;Providence Lively,&nbsp;Nicole O'Guinn","doi":"10.1177/01454455221098151","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The current article presents the findings from a systematic review of the available reliability and validity evidence supporting the use of criterion-referenced assessments based on the applied behavior analysis framework. We identified 46 studies that reported reliability and/or validity evidence for six assessments, 37 of which presented reliability evidence and 43 presented validity evidence. Additionally, we extracted and summarized information related to participant characteristics (e.g., age, sex, diagnosis), geographic location, and research setting (e.g., residential facility, home). Overall, we found conflicting support for the use of the assessments. When coupled with the reported usage by behavior analysis professionals, our findings suggest a misalignment between the reportedly used assessments and the number of published studies providing validity and/or reliability evidence. We found inconsistent use of measurement-related vocabulary and that many studies could have been strengthened by conducting different statistical analyses. We provide a summary of studies, findings, and offer recommendations for clinical practice and future measurement research.</p>","PeriodicalId":48037,"journal":{"name":"Behavior Modification","volume":" ","pages":"247-288"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validity and Reliability Evidence for Assessments Based in Applied Behavior Analysis: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Kristen L Padilla,&nbsp;Regan Weston,&nbsp;Grant B Morgan,&nbsp;Providence Lively,&nbsp;Nicole O'Guinn\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01454455221098151\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The current article presents the findings from a systematic review of the available reliability and validity evidence supporting the use of criterion-referenced assessments based on the applied behavior analysis framework. We identified 46 studies that reported reliability and/or validity evidence for six assessments, 37 of which presented reliability evidence and 43 presented validity evidence. Additionally, we extracted and summarized information related to participant characteristics (e.g., age, sex, diagnosis), geographic location, and research setting (e.g., residential facility, home). Overall, we found conflicting support for the use of the assessments. When coupled with the reported usage by behavior analysis professionals, our findings suggest a misalignment between the reportedly used assessments and the number of published studies providing validity and/or reliability evidence. We found inconsistent use of measurement-related vocabulary and that many studies could have been strengthened by conducting different statistical analyses. We provide a summary of studies, findings, and offer recommendations for clinical practice and future measurement research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48037,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Behavior Modification\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"247-288\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"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/10.1177/01454455221098151\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/7/6 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavior Modification","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01454455221098151","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/7/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文通过系统回顾现有的可靠性和有效性证据,提出了基于应用行为分析框架的标准参考评估方法。我们确定了46项研究报告了6项评估的信度和/或效度证据,其中37项提供了信度证据,43项提供了效度证据。此外,我们提取并总结了与参与者特征(如年龄、性别、诊断)、地理位置和研究环境(如居住设施、家庭)相关的信息。总的来说,我们发现了对使用评估的相互矛盾的支持。当与行为分析专业人员报告的使用情况相结合时,我们的发现表明,报告使用的评估与提供有效性和/或可靠性证据的已发表研究的数量之间存在不一致。我们发现测量相关词汇的使用不一致,许多研究可以通过进行不同的统计分析来加强。我们提供了研究的总结,发现,并提出建议,为临床实践和未来的测量研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Validity and Reliability Evidence for Assessments Based in Applied Behavior Analysis: A Systematic Review.

The current article presents the findings from a systematic review of the available reliability and validity evidence supporting the use of criterion-referenced assessments based on the applied behavior analysis framework. We identified 46 studies that reported reliability and/or validity evidence for six assessments, 37 of which presented reliability evidence and 43 presented validity evidence. Additionally, we extracted and summarized information related to participant characteristics (e.g., age, sex, diagnosis), geographic location, and research setting (e.g., residential facility, home). Overall, we found conflicting support for the use of the assessments. When coupled with the reported usage by behavior analysis professionals, our findings suggest a misalignment between the reportedly used assessments and the number of published studies providing validity and/or reliability evidence. We found inconsistent use of measurement-related vocabulary and that many studies could have been strengthened by conducting different statistical analyses. We provide a summary of studies, findings, and offer recommendations for clinical practice and future measurement research.

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