八个构念的形成性行为评估:直接行为评分与形成性行为评分方法的可靠性

IF 3.8 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Robert J. Volpe , Michael Matta , Amy M. Briesch , Julie S. Owens
{"title":"八个构念的形成性行为评估:直接行为评分与形成性行为评分方法的可靠性","authors":"Robert J. Volpe ,&nbsp;Michael Matta ,&nbsp;Amy M. Briesch ,&nbsp;Julie S. Owens","doi":"10.1016/j.jsp.2023.101251","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span>Due to their promise as a feasible tool for evaluating the effects of school-based interventions, Direct Behavior Ratings (DBR) have received much research attention over the past 2 decades. Although DBR methodology has demonstrated much promise, favorable psychometric characteristics only have been demonstrated for tools measuring a small number of constructs. Likewise, although a variety of methods of DBR have been proposed, most extant studies have focused on the use of single-item methods. The present study examined the dependability of four methods of formative behavioral assessment (i.e., single-item and multi-item ratings administered either daily [DBR] or weekly [formative behavior rating measures or FBRM]) across eight psychological constructs (i.e., interpersonal skills, academic engagement, organizational skills, disruptive behavior, oppositional behavior, interpersonal conflict, anxious depressed, and social withdrawal). School-based professionals (</span><em>N</em><span> = 91; i.e., teachers, paraprofessionals, and intervention specialists) each rated one student across all eight constructs after being assigned to one of the four assessment conditions. Dependability estimates varied substantially across methods and constructs (range = 0.75–0.96), although findings of the present study support the use of the broad set of formative assessment tools evaluated.</span></p></div>","PeriodicalId":48232,"journal":{"name":"Journal of School Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Formative behavioral assessment across eight constructs: Dependability of direct behavior ratings and formative behavior rating measures\",\"authors\":\"Robert J. Volpe ,&nbsp;Michael Matta ,&nbsp;Amy M. Briesch ,&nbsp;Julie S. Owens\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jsp.2023.101251\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p><span>Due to their promise as a feasible tool for evaluating the effects of school-based interventions, Direct Behavior Ratings (DBR) have received much research attention over the past 2 decades. Although DBR methodology has demonstrated much promise, favorable psychometric characteristics only have been demonstrated for tools measuring a small number of constructs. Likewise, although a variety of methods of DBR have been proposed, most extant studies have focused on the use of single-item methods. The present study examined the dependability of four methods of formative behavioral assessment (i.e., single-item and multi-item ratings administered either daily [DBR] or weekly [formative behavior rating measures or FBRM]) across eight psychological constructs (i.e., interpersonal skills, academic engagement, organizational skills, disruptive behavior, oppositional behavior, interpersonal conflict, anxious depressed, and social withdrawal). School-based professionals (</span><em>N</em><span> = 91; i.e., teachers, paraprofessionals, and intervention specialists) each rated one student across all eight constructs after being assigned to one of the four assessment conditions. Dependability estimates varied substantially across methods and constructs (range = 0.75–0.96), although findings of the present study support the use of the broad set of formative assessment tools evaluated.</span></p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48232,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of School Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of School Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022440523000791\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of School Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022440523000791","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

直接行为评级(DBR)作为一种评估学校干预效果的可行工具,在过去的20年里受到了广泛的研究关注。虽然DBR方法已经显示出很大的希望,但有利的心理测量特征只被证明用于测量少数构式的工具。同样,虽然DBR的研究方法多种多样,但现有的研究大多集中在单项方法的使用上。本研究考察了四种形成性行为评估方法(即每日或每周进行的单项和多项评分[DBR]或[FBRM])在8个心理构形(即人际交往能力、学术参与、组织能力、破坏性行为、对立行为、人际冲突、焦虑抑郁和社会退缩)中的可靠性。校本专业人员(N = 91;即,教师、辅助专业人员和干预专家)在被分配到四个评估条件中的一个后,每个人在所有八个构念中对一个学生进行评分。尽管本研究的结果支持使用广泛的形成性评估工具,但不同方法和结构的可靠性估计差异很大(范围= 0.75-0.96)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Formative behavioral assessment across eight constructs: Dependability of direct behavior ratings and formative behavior rating measures

Due to their promise as a feasible tool for evaluating the effects of school-based interventions, Direct Behavior Ratings (DBR) have received much research attention over the past 2 decades. Although DBR methodology has demonstrated much promise, favorable psychometric characteristics only have been demonstrated for tools measuring a small number of constructs. Likewise, although a variety of methods of DBR have been proposed, most extant studies have focused on the use of single-item methods. The present study examined the dependability of four methods of formative behavioral assessment (i.e., single-item and multi-item ratings administered either daily [DBR] or weekly [formative behavior rating measures or FBRM]) across eight psychological constructs (i.e., interpersonal skills, academic engagement, organizational skills, disruptive behavior, oppositional behavior, interpersonal conflict, anxious depressed, and social withdrawal). School-based professionals (N = 91; i.e., teachers, paraprofessionals, and intervention specialists) each rated one student across all eight constructs after being assigned to one of the four assessment conditions. Dependability estimates varied substantially across methods and constructs (range = 0.75–0.96), although findings of the present study support the use of the broad set of formative assessment tools evaluated.

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 School Psychology
Journal of School Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
8.00%
发文量
71
期刊介绍: The Journal of School Psychology publishes original empirical articles and critical reviews of the literature on research and practices relevant to psychological and behavioral processes in school settings. JSP presents research on intervention mechanisms and approaches; schooling effects on the development of social, cognitive, mental-health, and achievement-related outcomes; assessment; and consultation. Submissions from a variety of disciplines are encouraged. All manuscripts are read by the Editor and one or more editorial consultants with the intent of providing appropriate and constructive written 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