比较教师指导、视频模式和无指导对照教程在 Microsoft Excel 中创建单个受试者图形的效果:系统性复制和扩展。

IF 2.9 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Journal of applied behavior analysis Pub Date : 2024-02-06 DOI:10.1002/jaba.1053
Kimberley L. M. Zonneveld, Alison D. Cox, Madeline M. Asaro, Kieva S. Hranchuk, Arezu Alami, Laura D. Kelly, Jan C. Frijters
{"title":"比较教师指导、视频模式和无指导对照教程在 Microsoft Excel 中创建单个受试者图形的效果:系统性复制和扩展。","authors":"Kimberley L. M. Zonneveld,&nbsp;Alison D. Cox,&nbsp;Madeline M. Asaro,&nbsp;Kieva S. Hranchuk,&nbsp;Arezu Alami,&nbsp;Laura D. Kelly,&nbsp;Jan C. Frijters","doi":"10.1002/jaba.1053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Visual inspection of single-subject data is the primary method for behavior analysts to interpret the effect of an independent variable on a dependent variable; however, there is no consensus on the most suitable method for teaching graph construction for single-subject designs. We systematically replicated and extended Tyner and Fienup (2015) using a repeated-measures between-subjects design to compare the effects of instructor-led, video-model, and no-instruction control tutorials on the graphing performance of 81 master's students with some reported Microsoft Excel experience. Our mixed-design analysis revealed a statistically significant main effect of pretest, tutorial, and posttest submissions for each tutorial group and a nonsignificant main effect of tutorial group. Tutorial group significantly interacted with submissions, suggesting that both instructor-led and video-model tutorials may be superior to providing graduate students with a written list of graphing conventions (i.e., control condition). Finally, training influenced performance on an untrained graph type (multielement) for all tutorial groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":14983,"journal":{"name":"Journal of applied behavior analysis","volume":"57 2","pages":"502-514"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing instructor-led, video-model, and no-instruction control tutorials for creating single-subject graphs in Microsoft Excel: A systematic replication and extension\",\"authors\":\"Kimberley L. M. Zonneveld,&nbsp;Alison D. Cox,&nbsp;Madeline M. Asaro,&nbsp;Kieva S. Hranchuk,&nbsp;Arezu Alami,&nbsp;Laura D. Kelly,&nbsp;Jan C. Frijters\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jaba.1053\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Visual inspection of single-subject data is the primary method for behavior analysts to interpret the effect of an independent variable on a dependent variable; however, there is no consensus on the most suitable method for teaching graph construction for single-subject designs. We systematically replicated and extended Tyner and Fienup (2015) using a repeated-measures between-subjects design to compare the effects of instructor-led, video-model, and no-instruction control tutorials on the graphing performance of 81 master's students with some reported Microsoft Excel experience. Our mixed-design analysis revealed a statistically significant main effect of pretest, tutorial, and posttest submissions for each tutorial group and a nonsignificant main effect of tutorial group. Tutorial group significantly interacted with submissions, suggesting that both instructor-led and video-model tutorials may be superior to providing graduate students with a written list of graphing conventions (i.e., control condition). Finally, training influenced performance on an untrained graph type (multielement) for all tutorial groups.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14983,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of applied behavior analysis\",\"volume\":\"57 2\",\"pages\":\"502-514\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of applied behavior analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jaba.1053\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of applied behavior analysis","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jaba.1053","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对单一被试数据进行目测是行为分析师解释自变量对因变量影响的主要方法;然而,对于最适合单一被试设计的图形构建教学方法,目前还没有达成共识。我们系统地复制并扩展了 Tyner 和 Fienup(2015 年)的研究,采用重复测量的被试间设计,比较了教师指导、视频模型和无指导对照教程对 81 名具有一定 Microsoft Excel 经验的硕士生的图形绘制成绩的影响。我们的混合设计分析表明,每个辅导组的前测、辅导和后测提交成绩都有显著的主效应,而辅导组的主效应不显著。教程组与提交次数之间存在明显的交互作用,这表明教师指导和视频模拟教程都可能优于向研究生提供图形绘制规范的书面清单(即对照条件)。最后,培训影响了所有辅导组在未经培训的图形类型(多元素)上的表现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparing instructor-led, video-model, and no-instruction control tutorials for creating single-subject graphs in Microsoft Excel: A systematic replication and extension

Visual inspection of single-subject data is the primary method for behavior analysts to interpret the effect of an independent variable on a dependent variable; however, there is no consensus on the most suitable method for teaching graph construction for single-subject designs. We systematically replicated and extended Tyner and Fienup (2015) using a repeated-measures between-subjects design to compare the effects of instructor-led, video-model, and no-instruction control tutorials on the graphing performance of 81 master's students with some reported Microsoft Excel experience. Our mixed-design analysis revealed a statistically significant main effect of pretest, tutorial, and posttest submissions for each tutorial group and a nonsignificant main effect of tutorial group. Tutorial group significantly interacted with submissions, suggesting that both instructor-led and video-model tutorials may be superior to providing graduate students with a written list of graphing conventions (i.e., control condition). Finally, training influenced performance on an untrained graph type (multielement) for all tutorial groups.

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 applied behavior analysis
Journal of applied behavior analysis PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
20.70%
发文量
61
期刊最新文献
Evaluating the social acceptability of the Re-Connect concept: A smartphone-based, nonfinancial, contingency management intervention. Contingency management for monosubstance use disorders: Systematic review and assessment of predicted versus obtained effects. Choice versus no choice: Practical considerations for increasing choices. Functional analysis and treatment of problem behavior by domesticated canines. Effects of social interaction on leisure item preference and reinforcer efficacy for children with autism.
×
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