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 , Michael Matta , Amy M. Briesch , 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 , Michael Matta , Amy M. Briesch , 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}
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.
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.