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 & 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.
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.