验证人机操作软件:一个实例。

Behavior analysis (Washington, D.C.) Pub Date : 2022-11-01 Epub Date: 2022-04-21 DOI:10.1037/bar0000244
Sean W Smith, Brian D Greer
{"title":"验证人机操作软件:一个实例。","authors":"Sean W Smith,&nbsp;Brian D Greer","doi":"10.1037/bar0000244","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Human-operant experiments conducted with computer software facilitate translational research by assessing the generality of basic research findings and exploring previously untested predictions about behavior in a cost-effective and efficient manner. However, previous human-operant research with computer-based tasks has included little or no description of rigorous validation procedures for the experimental apparatus (i.e., the software used in the experiment). This omission, combined with a general lack of guidance regarding how to thoroughly validate experimental software, introduces the possibility that nascent researchers may insufficiently validate their computer-based apparatus. In this paper, we provide a case example to demonstrate the rigor required to validate experimental software by describing the procedures we used to validate the apparatus reported by Smith and Greer (2021) to assess relapse via a crowdsourcing platform. The validation procedures identified several issues with early iterations of the software, demonstrating how failing to validate human-operant software can introduce confounds into similar experiments. We describe our validation procedures in detail so that others exploring similar computer-based research may have an exemplar for the rigorous testing needed to validate computer software to ensure precision and reliability in computer-based, human-operant experiments.</p>","PeriodicalId":72345,"journal":{"name":"Behavior analysis (Washington, D.C.)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9718443/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Validating Human-Operant Software: A Case Example.\",\"authors\":\"Sean W Smith,&nbsp;Brian D Greer\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/bar0000244\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Human-operant experiments conducted with computer software facilitate translational research by assessing the generality of basic research findings and exploring previously untested predictions about behavior in a cost-effective and efficient manner. However, previous human-operant research with computer-based tasks has included little or no description of rigorous validation procedures for the experimental apparatus (i.e., the software used in the experiment). This omission, combined with a general lack of guidance regarding how to thoroughly validate experimental software, introduces the possibility that nascent researchers may insufficiently validate their computer-based apparatus. In this paper, we provide a case example to demonstrate the rigor required to validate experimental software by describing the procedures we used to validate the apparatus reported by Smith and Greer (2021) to assess relapse via a crowdsourcing platform. The validation procedures identified several issues with early iterations of the software, demonstrating how failing to validate human-operant software can introduce confounds into similar experiments. We describe our validation procedures in detail so that others exploring similar computer-based research may have an exemplar for the rigorous testing needed to validate computer software to ensure precision and reliability in computer-based, human-operant experiments.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72345,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Behavior analysis (Washington, D.C.)\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9718443/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Behavior analysis (Washington, D.C.)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/bar0000244\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/4/21 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavior analysis (Washington, D.C.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/bar0000244","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/4/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

使用计算机软件进行的人类操作性实验通过评估基本研究结果的普遍性,并以成本效益和高效的方式探索以前未经测试的行为预测,促进了转化研究。然而,以前对基于计算机的任务进行的人类操作性研究很少或根本没有对实验装置(即实验中使用的软件)的严格验证程序进行描述。这一遗漏,再加上普遍缺乏关于如何彻底验证实验软件的指导,导致新生的研究人员可能无法充分验证他们的计算机设备。在本文中,我们提供了一个案例,通过描述我们用于验证Smith和Greer(2021)报告的通过众包平台评估复发的仪器的程序,来证明验证实验软件所需的严格性。验证程序发现了软件早期迭代的几个问题,证明了未能验证人类操作软件会给类似的实验带来混淆。我们详细描述了我们的验证程序,以便其他探索类似基于计算机的研究的人可以为验证计算机软件所需的严格测试提供范例,以确保基于计算机的人类操作实验的准确性和可靠性。
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
Validating Human-Operant Software: A Case Example.

Human-operant experiments conducted with computer software facilitate translational research by assessing the generality of basic research findings and exploring previously untested predictions about behavior in a cost-effective and efficient manner. However, previous human-operant research with computer-based tasks has included little or no description of rigorous validation procedures for the experimental apparatus (i.e., the software used in the experiment). This omission, combined with a general lack of guidance regarding how to thoroughly validate experimental software, introduces the possibility that nascent researchers may insufficiently validate their computer-based apparatus. In this paper, we provide a case example to demonstrate the rigor required to validate experimental software by describing the procedures we used to validate the apparatus reported by Smith and Greer (2021) to assess relapse via a crowdsourcing platform. The validation procedures identified several issues with early iterations of the software, demonstrating how failing to validate human-operant software can introduce confounds into similar experiments. We describe our validation procedures in detail so that others exploring similar computer-based research may have an exemplar for the rigorous testing needed to validate computer software to ensure precision and reliability in computer-based, human-operant experiments.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Correspondence between data provided by parents and trained observers about challenging behavior. Supplemental Material for Correspondence Between Data Provided by Parents and Trained Observers About Challenging Behavior SΔp: The Missing Discriminative Stimulus for Non-Punishment. Validation of a tablet-based program for skill acquisition research. Aggression and crying as side effects of time-out.
×
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