使用直接和间接功能评估来指导个性化学术干预的选择。

IF 1.2 4区 教育学 Q3 EDUCATION, SPECIAL Journal of Behavioral Education Pub Date : 2023-03-02 DOI:10.1007/s10864-023-09511-x
Tyler-Curtis C Elliott, Andrea M Zawoyski, Kevin M Ayres
{"title":"使用直接和间接功能评估来指导个性化学术干预的选择。","authors":"Tyler-Curtis C Elliott,&nbsp;Andrea M Zawoyski,&nbsp;Kevin M Ayres","doi":"10.1007/s10864-023-09511-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>When teachers work with students exhibiting academic failure, they may look to factors outside of instruction such as a student's home life or perceived disability as explanations. Placing the locus of control outside of the instructional context becomes a convenient way to escape culpability for unsatisfactory outcomes. A more functional approach to addressing academic deficits allows educators to determine environmental factors responsible for the lack of progress and then create interventions designed to address these functions of academic failure. Although experimental analyses serve as the gold standard for evaluating functional relations between behavior and environment, educators may not always have the ability to systematically test all behavior-environment relations. Indirect assessments provide one means to develop hypotheses about environment-behavior relations that can then be validated with experimental analyses. In this study, researchers developed an indirect tool (Academic Diagnostic Checklist - Beta; ADC-B) based on the function of academic performance deficits (Daly et al. in School Psychology Review 26:554, 1997) and validated the use of the ADC-B by comparing interventions that were suggested (indicated) and those non-suggested (contraindicated) by the ADC-B. Researchers used the ADC-B with four participants and found that for three of the four participants, the suggested intervention was the most efficacious at improving accuracy with the target skills. One limitation is that we did not evaluate the full technical adequacy of the ADC-B, which should be a focus of future research.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10864-023-09511-x.</p>","PeriodicalId":47391,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Education","volume":" ","pages":"1-37"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9979893/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Using Direct and Indirect Functional Assessments to Guide the Selection of Individualized Academic Interventions.\",\"authors\":\"Tyler-Curtis C Elliott,&nbsp;Andrea M Zawoyski,&nbsp;Kevin M Ayres\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10864-023-09511-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>When teachers work with students exhibiting academic failure, they may look to factors outside of instruction such as a student's home life or perceived disability as explanations. Placing the locus of control outside of the instructional context becomes a convenient way to escape culpability for unsatisfactory outcomes. A more functional approach to addressing academic deficits allows educators to determine environmental factors responsible for the lack of progress and then create interventions designed to address these functions of academic failure. Although experimental analyses serve as the gold standard for evaluating functional relations between behavior and environment, educators may not always have the ability to systematically test all behavior-environment relations. Indirect assessments provide one means to develop hypotheses about environment-behavior relations that can then be validated with experimental analyses. In this study, researchers developed an indirect tool (Academic Diagnostic Checklist - Beta; ADC-B) based on the function of academic performance deficits (Daly et al. in School Psychology Review 26:554, 1997) and validated the use of the ADC-B by comparing interventions that were suggested (indicated) and those non-suggested (contraindicated) by the ADC-B. Researchers used the ADC-B with four participants and found that for three of the four participants, the suggested intervention was the most efficacious at improving accuracy with the target skills. One limitation is that we did not evaluate the full technical adequacy of the ADC-B, which should be a focus of future research.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10864-023-09511-x.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47391,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Behavioral Education\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-37\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9979893/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Behavioral Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-023-09511-x\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SPECIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-023-09511-x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

当教师与表现出学业失败的学生合作时,他们可能会考虑教学之外的因素,如学生的家庭生活或感知到的残疾作为解释。将控制点置于教学环境之外成为逃避对不令人满意的结果的罪责的一种方便方式。一种更实用的解决学业缺陷的方法使教育工作者能够确定导致学业缺乏进步的环境因素,然后制定旨在解决学业失败的这些功能的干预措施。尽管实验分析是评估行为与环境之间功能关系的黄金标准,但教育工作者可能并不总是有能力系统地测试所有行为与环境的关系。间接评估提供了一种方法来发展关于环境行为关系的假设,然后可以通过实验分析进行验证。在这项研究中,研究人员根据学习成绩缺陷的功能开发了一种间接工具(学术诊断检查表-β;ADC-B)(Daly等人,《学校心理学评论》26:551997),并通过比较ADC-B建议(指示)和非建议(禁忌)的干预措施来验证ADC-B的使用。研究人员对四名参与者使用了ADC-B,发现对于四名参与者中的三名,建议的干预措施在提高目标技能的准确性方面最有效。一个限制是,我们没有评估ADC-B的全部技术充分性,这应该是未来研究的重点。补充信息:在线版本包含补充材料,请访问10.1007/s10864-023-09511-x。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Using Direct and Indirect Functional Assessments to Guide the Selection of Individualized Academic Interventions.

When teachers work with students exhibiting academic failure, they may look to factors outside of instruction such as a student's home life or perceived disability as explanations. Placing the locus of control outside of the instructional context becomes a convenient way to escape culpability for unsatisfactory outcomes. A more functional approach to addressing academic deficits allows educators to determine environmental factors responsible for the lack of progress and then create interventions designed to address these functions of academic failure. Although experimental analyses serve as the gold standard for evaluating functional relations between behavior and environment, educators may not always have the ability to systematically test all behavior-environment relations. Indirect assessments provide one means to develop hypotheses about environment-behavior relations that can then be validated with experimental analyses. In this study, researchers developed an indirect tool (Academic Diagnostic Checklist - Beta; ADC-B) based on the function of academic performance deficits (Daly et al. in School Psychology Review 26:554, 1997) and validated the use of the ADC-B by comparing interventions that were suggested (indicated) and those non-suggested (contraindicated) by the ADC-B. Researchers used the ADC-B with four participants and found that for three of the four participants, the suggested intervention was the most efficacious at improving accuracy with the target skills. One limitation is that we did not evaluate the full technical adequacy of the ADC-B, which should be a focus of future research.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10864-023-09511-x.

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 Behavioral Education
Journal of Behavioral Education EDUCATION, SPECIAL-
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
10.00%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: The Journal of Behavioral Education is an international forum dedicated to publishing original research papers on the application of behavioral principles and technology to education. Education is defined broadly and the journal places no restriction on the types of participants involved in the reported studies--including by age, ability, or setting. Each quarterly issue presents empirical research investigating best-practices and innovative methods to address a wide range of educational targets and issues pertaining to the needs of diverse learners and to implementation. The Journal of Behavioral Education is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal whose target audience is educational researchers and practitioners including general and special education teachers, school psychologists, and other school personnel.  Rigorous experimental designs, including single-subject with replication and group designs are considered for publication. An emphasis is placed on direct observation measures of the primary dependent variable in studies of educational issues, problems, and practices.  Discussion articles and critical reviews also are published.
期刊最新文献
Using Constant Time Delay to Teach Sight Words to Students Identified as Deafblind Applying “Mastery” Criteria to Sets and Individual Operants: A Replication with Preschoolers with Disabilities The Effect of a Tiered Professional Development Framework on Check-In/Check-Out Treatment Fidelity Efficiency and Child Preference for Specific Prompting Procedures Social and Ecological Validity of the Good Behavior Game: A Systematic Review
×
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