ArticleJournal of applied behavior analysis2011
Calibration of observational measurement of rate of responding.
Article in Journal of applied behavior analysis, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- IMPACT Requests: Evaluating the Effectiveness of IMPACT Education for Emergency Department Referrers to Improve the Quality of CT Requests.Journal of medical radiation sciences · 2026Article
- Technology-based interventions to address internet addictive behaviors: systematic review.Discover mental health · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The quality of measurement systems used in almost all natural sciences other than behavior analysis is usually evaluated through calibration study rather than relying on interobserver agreement. We demonstrated some of the basic features of calibration using observer-measured rates of free-operant responding from 10 scripted 10-min calibration samples on video. Five novice and 5 experienced observers recorded (on laptop computers) response samples with a priori determined response rates ranging from 0 to 8 responses per minute. Observer records were then compared with these predetermined reference values using linear regression and related graphical depiction. Results indicated that all of the observers recorded rates that were accurate to within ±0.4 responses per minute and 5 were accurate to within ±0.1 responses per minute, indicating that continuous recording of responding on computers can be highly accurate and precise. Additional research is recommended to investigate conditions that affect the quality of direct observational measurement of behavior.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.