评估简要功能分析与基于访谈的综合偶然性分析程序之间对应关系的潜力

IF 3.3 4区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL Canadian Journal of School Psychology Pub Date : 2021-08-24 DOI:10.1177/08295735211041815
MacKenzie D. Sidwell, D. Gadke, Ryan L. Farmer, Hailey E. Ripple, Jonathan Tritley
{"title":"评估简要功能分析与基于访谈的综合偶然性分析程序之间对应关系的潜力","authors":"MacKenzie D. Sidwell, D. Gadke, Ryan L. Farmer, Hailey E. Ripple, Jonathan Tritley","doi":"10.1177/08295735211041815","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"School Psychologists regularly conduct Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA), though, most FBA are completed using indirect procedures, which are inadequate for creating function-based interventions relative to experimental measures, such as functional analysis (FA). However, traditional FA may be considered arduous in the school setting. Alternative procedures like brief functional analysis (BFA) and interview informed synthesized contingency analysis (IISCA), may be as effective and more efficient than FA. Limited research exploring the correspondence of these procedures exists. The current study used an alternating treatment design across eight school aged children to compare control and test conditions for each measure. A within subjects approach was also used to compare the results of BFA and IISCA. Correspondence across the two measures was 54.17%. With average correspondence yielding just over half, the results indicate the two FA methods did not reliably identify the same function. Implications for practice are discussed.","PeriodicalId":46445,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of School Psychology","volume":"37 1","pages":"160 - 174"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating the Potential for Correspondence Between Brief Functional Analysis and Interview-Informed Synthesized Contingency Analysis Procedures\",\"authors\":\"MacKenzie D. Sidwell, D. Gadke, Ryan L. Farmer, Hailey E. Ripple, Jonathan Tritley\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/08295735211041815\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"School Psychologists regularly conduct Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA), though, most FBA are completed using indirect procedures, which are inadequate for creating function-based interventions relative to experimental measures, such as functional analysis (FA). However, traditional FA may be considered arduous in the school setting. Alternative procedures like brief functional analysis (BFA) and interview informed synthesized contingency analysis (IISCA), may be as effective and more efficient than FA. Limited research exploring the correspondence of these procedures exists. The current study used an alternating treatment design across eight school aged children to compare control and test conditions for each measure. A within subjects approach was also used to compare the results of BFA and IISCA. Correspondence across the two measures was 54.17%. With average correspondence yielding just over half, the results indicate the two FA methods did not reliably identify the same function. Implications for practice are discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46445,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of School Psychology\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"160 - 174\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of School Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/08295735211041815\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of School Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08295735211041815","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

学校心理学家定期进行功能行为评估(FBA),然而,大多数功能行为评估都是使用间接程序完成的,相对于功能分析(FA)等实验措施,这些程序不足以创建基于功能的干预措施。然而,传统的FA在学校环境中可能被认为是艰巨的。简短功能分析(BFA)和访谈知情综合应急分析(IISCA)等替代程序可能与FA一样有效。探索这些程序对应性的研究有限。目前的研究对八名学龄儿童进行了交替治疗设计,以比较每项措施的对照和测试条件。受试者内部方法也用于比较BFA和IISCA的结果。两个指标的对应率为54.17%。平均对应率略高于一半,结果表明两种FA方法不能可靠地识别相同的函数。讨论了对实践的启示。
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
Evaluating the Potential for Correspondence Between Brief Functional Analysis and Interview-Informed Synthesized Contingency Analysis Procedures
School Psychologists regularly conduct Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA), though, most FBA are completed using indirect procedures, which are inadequate for creating function-based interventions relative to experimental measures, such as functional analysis (FA). However, traditional FA may be considered arduous in the school setting. Alternative procedures like brief functional analysis (BFA) and interview informed synthesized contingency analysis (IISCA), may be as effective and more efficient than FA. Limited research exploring the correspondence of these procedures exists. The current study used an alternating treatment design across eight school aged children to compare control and test conditions for each measure. A within subjects approach was also used to compare the results of BFA and IISCA. Correspondence across the two measures was 54.17%. With average correspondence yielding just over half, the results indicate the two FA methods did not reliably identify the same function. Implications for practice are discussed.
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
Canadian Journal of School Psychology
Canadian Journal of School Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, EDUCATIONAL-
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
期刊介绍: The Canadian Journals of School Psychology (CJSP) is the official journal of the Canadian Association of School Psychologists and publishes papers focusing on the interface between psychology and education. Papers may reflect theory, research, and practice of psychology in education, as well as book and test reviews. The journal is aimed at practitioners, but is subscribed to by university libraries and individuals (i.e. psychologists). CJSP has become the major reference for practicing school psychologists and students in graduate educational and school psychology programs in Canada.
期刊最新文献
Adolescent Dating Violence Prevention: Teaching Social Justice Oriented Skills and Strategies to Undergraduate-Level Teachers and Social Workers Introduction to Special Issue: How Research Reform in Psychology Can Influence Professional School Psychology Advancing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in School Psychology Science and Scholarship: Changing Training and Practice in the Field of School Psychology The Role of Reciprocated Friendships in the Behavioral Correlates of Sociometric Categories Registered Reports in School Psychology Research: Initial Experiences, Analyses, and Future
×
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