Evaluating Artificial Intelligence on the Efficacy of Preference Assessments for Preservice Speech-Language Pathologists

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q2 EDUCATION, SPECIAL Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities Pub Date : 2024-07-02 DOI:10.1007/s10882-024-09976-2
Brenna Griffen, Elizabeth R. Lorah, Christine Holyfield, Nicolette Caldwell, John Nosek
{"title":"Evaluating Artificial Intelligence on the Efficacy of Preference Assessments for Preservice Speech-Language Pathologists","authors":"Brenna Griffen, Elizabeth R. Lorah, Christine Holyfield, Nicolette Caldwell, John Nosek","doi":"10.1007/s10882-024-09976-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) face many barriers to meaningful inclusion, including limited language and communication skills. Professionals, such as speech-language pathologists (SLPs), can provide personalized instruction to promote skill development and inclusion. Providing opportunities for individuals to express preferences and choice, such as the multiple stimulus without replacement preference assessment (MSWO; DeLeon &amp; Iwata 1996), within these programs, further increases skill acquisition and social interaction. However, limitations in professionals’ knowledge and skills in performing assessments can be another barrier to meaningful inclusion for individuals with IDD and traditional training methods can be challenging and time consuming. The purpose of the current study was to compare the use of artificial intelligence with traditional pen and paper self-instructional MSWO training methods for five preservice SLPs. Fidelity of implementation and duration of assessment were measured. Results demonstrated a large increase in implementation fidelity for two participants, a moderate increase for two participants and a slight increase for the remaining participant while using artificial intelligence. All participants demonstrated a decrease in scoring errors using artificial intelligence. Regarding duration of implementation, artificial intelligence resulted in a significant reduction for four participants and a moderate reduction for the remaining participant. Results of the follow-up survey suggest that all adult participants and both child participants found that artificial intelligence had a higher treatment acceptability and was more effective at producing socially significant outcomes than traditional methods. Recommendations for clinicians and future research are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":47565,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities","volume":"67 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-024-09976-2","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) face many barriers to meaningful inclusion, including limited language and communication skills. Professionals, such as speech-language pathologists (SLPs), can provide personalized instruction to promote skill development and inclusion. Providing opportunities for individuals to express preferences and choice, such as the multiple stimulus without replacement preference assessment (MSWO; DeLeon & Iwata 1996), within these programs, further increases skill acquisition and social interaction. However, limitations in professionals’ knowledge and skills in performing assessments can be another barrier to meaningful inclusion for individuals with IDD and traditional training methods can be challenging and time consuming. The purpose of the current study was to compare the use of artificial intelligence with traditional pen and paper self-instructional MSWO training methods for five preservice SLPs. Fidelity of implementation and duration of assessment were measured. Results demonstrated a large increase in implementation fidelity for two participants, a moderate increase for two participants and a slight increase for the remaining participant while using artificial intelligence. All participants demonstrated a decrease in scoring errors using artificial intelligence. Regarding duration of implementation, artificial intelligence resulted in a significant reduction for four participants and a moderate reduction for the remaining participant. Results of the follow-up survey suggest that all adult participants and both child participants found that artificial intelligence had a higher treatment acceptability and was more effective at producing socially significant outcomes than traditional methods. Recommendations for clinicians and future research are discussed.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估人工智能对职前言语治疗师偏好评估的功效
智力和发育障碍 (IDD) 患者在实现有意义的共融方面面临许多障碍,包括语言和沟通技能有限。语言病理学家(SLPs)等专业人士可以提供个性化指导,以促进技能发展和融入。在这些计划中,为个人提供表达偏好和选择的机会,如多重刺激无替代偏好评估(MSWO;DeLeon & Iwata 1996),可进一步提高技能习得和社会交往能力。然而,专业人员在进行评估时所掌握的知识和技能有限,这可能会成为对智障人士进行有意义的融入的另一个障碍,而且传统的培训方法可能具有挑战性且耗费时间。本研究的目的是比较人工智能与传统的纸笔自学式 MSWO 培训方法对五名职前 SLP 的使用情况。对实施的忠实度和评估的持续时间进行了测量。结果表明,在使用人工智能时,两名参与者的实施忠实度大幅提高,两名参与者的实施忠实度适度提高,其余参与者的实施忠实度略有提高。使用人工智能后,所有参与者的评分错误都有所减少。在实施时间方面,人工智能使四名参与者的实施时间显著缩短,其余参与者的实施时间适度缩短。跟踪调查结果表明,所有成人参与者和两名儿童参与者都认为,与传统方法相比,人工智能的治疗可接受性更高,在产生具有社会意义的结果方面也更有效。本文讨论了对临床医生和未来研究的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
5.60%
发文量
54
期刊介绍: The Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities is an interdisciplinary forum for the publication of original research and clinical reports from a variety of fields serving persons with developmental and physical disabilities. Submissions from researchers, clinicians, and related professionals in the fields of psychology, rehabilitation, special education, kinesiology, counseling, social work, psychiatry, nursing, and rehabilitation medicine are considered. Investigations utilizing group comparisons as well as single-case experimental designs are of primary interest. In addition, case studies that are of particular clinical relevance or that describe innovative evaluation and intervention techniques are welcome. All research and clinical reports should contain sufficient procedural detail so that readers can clearly understand what was done, how it was done, and why the strategy was selected. Rigorously conducted replication studies utilizing group and single-case designs are welcome irrespective of results obtained. In addition, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and theoretical discussions that contribute substantially to understanding the problems and strengths of persons with developmental and physical disabilities are considered for publication. Authors are encouraged to preregister empirical studies, replications, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses in a relevant public database and to include such information with their submission to the journal. Authors are also encouraged, where possible and applicable, to deposit data that support the findings of their research in a public repository (see detailed “Research Data Policy” module in the journal’s Instructions for Authors). In response to the need for increased clinical and research endeavors with persons with developmental and physical disabilities, the journal is cross-categorical and unbiased methodologically.
期刊最新文献
Incorporating Choice: Examining the Beliefs and Practices of Behavior Analysts Working with Individuals with Disabilities Differences in Executive Functioning for children with additional learning needs and Autism Spectrum Disorder or Attachment Disorder Enhancing Assent and Treatment Outcomes: A Case Study on Responding to Aversive Ambient Auditory Stimuli for an Autistic Adult Social and language regression: characteristics of children with autism spectrum disorder in a community-based sample. Perspectives of Transition-Aged Youth with Intellectual and/or Developmental Disabilities about Self-Advocacy and Civic Engagement
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1