科克伦 Q 测试自闭症儿童口语曲目中的刺激过度选择性。

IF 2.5 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Perspectives on Behavior Science Pub Date : 2021-09-15 eCollection Date: 2022-03-01 DOI:10.1007/s40614-021-00315-w
Lee Mason, Maria Otero, Alonzo Andrews
{"title":"科克伦 Q 测试自闭症儿童口语曲目中的刺激过度选择性。","authors":"Lee Mason, Maria Otero, Alonzo Andrews","doi":"10.1007/s40614-021-00315-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Stimulus overselectivity remains an ill-defined concept within behavior analysis, because it can be difficult to distinguish truly restrictive stimulus control from random variation. Quantitative models of bias are useful, though perhaps limited in application. Over the last 50 years, research on stimulus overselectivity has developed a pattern of assessment and intervention repeatedly marred by methodological flaws. Here we argue that a molecular view of overselectivity, under which restricted stimulus control has heretofore been examined, is fundamentally insufficient for analyzing this phenomenon. Instead, we propose the use of the term \"overselectivity\" to define temporally extended patterns of restrictive stimulus control that have resulted in disproportionate populations of responding that cannot be attributed to chance alone, and highlight examples of overselectivity within the verbal behavior of children with autism spectrum disorder. Viewed as such, stimulus overselectivity lends itself to direct observation and measurement through the statistical analysis of single-subject data. In particular, we demonstrate the use of the Cochran <i>Q</i> test as a means of precisely quantifying stimulus overselectivity. We provide a tutorial on calculation, a model for interpretation, and a discussion of the implications for the use of Cochran's <i>Q</i> by clinicians and researchers.</p>","PeriodicalId":44993,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Behavior Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8894513/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cochran's Q Test of Stimulus Overselectivity within the Verbal Repertoire of Children with Autism.\",\"authors\":\"Lee Mason, Maria Otero, Alonzo Andrews\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40614-021-00315-w\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Stimulus overselectivity remains an ill-defined concept within behavior analysis, because it can be difficult to distinguish truly restrictive stimulus control from random variation. Quantitative models of bias are useful, though perhaps limited in application. Over the last 50 years, research on stimulus overselectivity has developed a pattern of assessment and intervention repeatedly marred by methodological flaws. Here we argue that a molecular view of overselectivity, under which restricted stimulus control has heretofore been examined, is fundamentally insufficient for analyzing this phenomenon. Instead, we propose the use of the term \\\"overselectivity\\\" to define temporally extended patterns of restrictive stimulus control that have resulted in disproportionate populations of responding that cannot be attributed to chance alone, and highlight examples of overselectivity within the verbal behavior of children with autism spectrum disorder. Viewed as such, stimulus overselectivity lends itself to direct observation and measurement through the statistical analysis of single-subject data. In particular, we demonstrate the use of the Cochran <i>Q</i> test as a means of precisely quantifying stimulus overselectivity. We provide a tutorial on calculation, a model for interpretation, and a discussion of the implications for the use of Cochran's <i>Q</i> by clinicians and researchers.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44993,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Perspectives on Behavior Science\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8894513/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Perspectives on Behavior Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-021-00315-w\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/3/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives on Behavior Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-021-00315-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在行为分析中,刺激过度选择性仍然是一个定义不清的概念,因为很难将真正的限制性刺激控制与随机变异区分开来。偏差的定量模型是有用的,尽管其应用可能有限。在过去的 50 年中,有关刺激过度选择性的研究已经形成了一种评估和干预模式,这种模式屡屡受到方法论缺陷的损害。在此,我们认为,从分子角度看过度选择性,即迄今为止对受限刺激控制的研究,从根本上说不足以分析这一现象。相反,我们建议使用 "过度选择性"(overselectivity)这一术语来定义限制性刺激控制在时间上的扩展模式,这种模式导致了不相称的反应人群,而这不能仅仅归因于偶然性,我们还强调了自闭症谱系障碍儿童言语行为中过度选择性的例子。从这个角度来看,刺激过度选择性适合通过单个被试数据的统计分析进行直接观察和测量。我们特别展示了如何使用科克兰 Q 检验来精确量化刺激过度选择性。我们提供了计算教程、解释模型,并讨论了临床医生和研究人员使用科克兰 Q 的意义。
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
Cochran's Q Test of Stimulus Overselectivity within the Verbal Repertoire of Children with Autism.

Stimulus overselectivity remains an ill-defined concept within behavior analysis, because it can be difficult to distinguish truly restrictive stimulus control from random variation. Quantitative models of bias are useful, though perhaps limited in application. Over the last 50 years, research on stimulus overselectivity has developed a pattern of assessment and intervention repeatedly marred by methodological flaws. Here we argue that a molecular view of overselectivity, under which restricted stimulus control has heretofore been examined, is fundamentally insufficient for analyzing this phenomenon. Instead, we propose the use of the term "overselectivity" to define temporally extended patterns of restrictive stimulus control that have resulted in disproportionate populations of responding that cannot be attributed to chance alone, and highlight examples of overselectivity within the verbal behavior of children with autism spectrum disorder. Viewed as such, stimulus overselectivity lends itself to direct observation and measurement through the statistical analysis of single-subject data. In particular, we demonstrate the use of the Cochran Q test as a means of precisely quantifying stimulus overselectivity. We provide a tutorial on calculation, a model for interpretation, and a discussion of the implications for the use of Cochran's Q by clinicians and researchers.

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
Perspectives on Behavior Science
Perspectives on Behavior Science PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
10.00%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: Perspectives on Behavior Science is an official publication of the Association for Behavior Analysis International. It is published quarterly, and in addition to its articles on theoretical, experimental, and applied topics in behavior analysis, this journal also includes literature reviews, re-interpretations of published data, and articles on behaviorism as a philosophy.
期刊最新文献
Bouts, Pauses, and Units of Operant Performance: A Primer. Correction: Resurgence and Behavioral Contrast, Compared and Contrasted. Reconceptualizing the Interaction of Behavior and Environment. Relating in the Wild: Toward an Analysis of Equivalence Relations Under More Naturalistic Conditions. Correction to: Analyzing the Functional Interdependence of Verbal Behavior with Multiaxial Radar Charts.
×
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