ArticleLearning and motivation2018
Reliability and Validity of Indirect Assessment Outcomes: Experts versus Caregivers.
Article in Learning and motivation, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Functional Analysis Decision-Making Considerations.Behavior analysis in practice · 2025Review
- Detecting and Classifying Self-injurious Behavior in Autism Spectrum Disorder Using Machine Learning Techniques.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2020Article
- Multi-level modeling with nonlinear movement metrics to classify self-injurious behaviors in autism spectrum disorder.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- A Preliminary Evaluation of Interrater Reliability and Concurrent Validity of Open-Ended Indirect Assessment.Behavior analysis in practice · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Clinicians often conduct indirect assessments (IAs; e.g., Durand & Crimmins, 1988; Iwata, DeLeon, & Roscoe, 2013; Matson & Vollmer, 1995) such as questionnaires and interviews with caregivers to gain information about the variables influencing problem behavior. However, researchers have found poor reliability and validity of IAs with respect to determining functional variables. There are numerous variables that might influence the efficacy of IAs as an assessment tool, one of which is the skill set of the person completing the IA. For example, it may be possible to increase the validity and reliability of IAs by having individuals with certain skill sets such as a background in behavior analysis and FBA ("experts") complete them. Thus, the purpose of this study was to compare the reliability (i.e., agreement with respect to function and specific IA questions) and validity (i.e., agreement between the outcome of IAs and a functional analysis) of IAs completed by caregivers and "experts" for each of eight children who emitted problem behavior. We found that experts were more likely than caregivers to agree on IA outcomes with respect to (a) overall interrater agreement, (b) item-by-item agreement, and (c) the highest-rated function(s) of problem behavior. Experts were also more likely to correctly identify the function(s), based on comparisons of the results of the IAs and FAs. In addition, caregivers were more likely to (a) disagree on hypothesized functions and (b) identify multiple incorrect functions. The use of experts for completing IAs could have significant impact on their utility and provide a novel method for more rapidly completing the FBA process and developing a function-based treatment.
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.