评估配对刺激偏好评估的两次迭代

IF 1.1 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Hannah MacNaul, Anh Nguyen, Shannon Wilson, Catia Cividini-Motta, Natalie Mandel
{"title":"评估配对刺激偏好评估的两次迭代","authors":"Hannah MacNaul,&nbsp;Anh Nguyen,&nbsp;Shannon Wilson,&nbsp;Catia Cividini-Motta,&nbsp;Natalie Mandel","doi":"10.1002/bin.1977","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The paired stimulus preference assessment (PSPA) is commonly used in both research and practice. However, two iterations have been described: a single-presentation arrangement in which each tested stimulus is paired with one another once and a double-presentation arrangement in which each tested stimulus is paired twice with counterbalanced placement. Each arrangement may have different advantages; however, no direct comparison exists. Thus, the purpose of the current study was to conduct both PSPA iterations to determine whether there are differences in the results obtained and which iteration was most efficient regarding time to administer. Seven participants were included, and results demonstrated high degrees of correspondence across preference assessment formats. The average time to administer the single-presentation PSPA (<i>M</i> =6.6 min) was almost half the time to administer a double-presentation PSPA (<i>M</i> =12.9 min), and no significant differences were observed for problem behavior, side biases, or latency to stimulus selection.</p>","PeriodicalId":47138,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Interventions","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating two iterations of a paired stimulus preference assessment\",\"authors\":\"Hannah MacNaul,&nbsp;Anh Nguyen,&nbsp;Shannon Wilson,&nbsp;Catia Cividini-Motta,&nbsp;Natalie Mandel\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/bin.1977\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The paired stimulus preference assessment (PSPA) is commonly used in both research and practice. However, two iterations have been described: a single-presentation arrangement in which each tested stimulus is paired with one another once and a double-presentation arrangement in which each tested stimulus is paired twice with counterbalanced placement. Each arrangement may have different advantages; however, no direct comparison exists. Thus, the purpose of the current study was to conduct both PSPA iterations to determine whether there are differences in the results obtained and which iteration was most efficient regarding time to administer. Seven participants were included, and results demonstrated high degrees of correspondence across preference assessment formats. The average time to administer the single-presentation PSPA (<i>M</i> =6.6 min) was almost half the time to administer a double-presentation PSPA (<i>M</i> =12.9 min), and no significant differences were observed for problem behavior, side biases, or latency to stimulus selection.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47138,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Behavioral Interventions\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Behavioral Interventions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bin.1977\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"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":"Behavioral Interventions","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bin.1977","RegionNum":4,"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

配对刺激偏好评估(PSPA)在研究和实践中都很常用。然而,已经描述了两种迭代:一种是单演示安排,其中每个测试刺激相互配对一次,另一种是双演示安排,每个测试刺激配对两次,并进行平衡放置。每种布置可能具有不同的优点;然而,没有直接的比较。因此,当前研究的目的是进行两次PSPA迭代,以确定所获得的结果是否存在差异,以及哪次迭代在给药时间方面最有效。七名参与者被包括在内,结果表明,偏好评估格式之间的一致性很高。给予单次PSPA的平均时间(M=6.6分钟)几乎是给予双次PSPA时间(M=12.9分钟)的一半,在问题行为、副作用或刺激选择潜伏期方面没有观察到显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating two iterations of a paired stimulus preference assessment

The paired stimulus preference assessment (PSPA) is commonly used in both research and practice. However, two iterations have been described: a single-presentation arrangement in which each tested stimulus is paired with one another once and a double-presentation arrangement in which each tested stimulus is paired twice with counterbalanced placement. Each arrangement may have different advantages; however, no direct comparison exists. Thus, the purpose of the current study was to conduct both PSPA iterations to determine whether there are differences in the results obtained and which iteration was most efficient regarding time to administer. Seven participants were included, and results demonstrated high degrees of correspondence across preference assessment formats. The average time to administer the single-presentation PSPA (M =6.6 min) was almost half the time to administer a double-presentation PSPA (M =12.9 min), and no significant differences were observed for problem behavior, side biases, or latency to stimulus selection.

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
Behavioral Interventions
Behavioral Interventions PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
20.00%
发文量
66
期刊介绍: Behavioral Interventions aims to report research and practice involving the utilization of behavioral techniques in the treatment, education, assessment and training of students, clients or patients, as well as training techniques used with staff. Behavioral Interventions publishes: (1) research articles, (2) brief reports (a short report of an innovative technique or intervention that may be less rigorous than a research report), (3) topical literature reviews and discussion articles, (4) book reviews.
×
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