Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32231972›Full record

ArticleBehavior analysis in practice2020

A Preliminary Evaluation of Interrater Reliability and Concurrent Validity of Open-Ended Indirect Assessment.

Valdeep Saini, Kelly Ubdegrove, Shany Biran, Rebecca Duncan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior analysis in practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Valdeep Saini1Department of Applied Disability Studies, Brock University, 1812 Sir Isaac Brock Way, St. Catherines, ON Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4616-6677
Kelly Ubdegrove2Surrey Place Centre, Toronto, Canada.
Shany Biran2Surrey Place Centre, Toronto, Canada.
Rebecca DuncanABA of Illinois, Darien, IL USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Indirect assessments are a commonly used component of functional behavior assessment by behavior analysts in practice who work with individuals with severe behavior disorders. Although used frequently, closed-ended indirect assessments have repeatedly been shown to have low to moderate interrater reliability and poor concurrent validity with functional analysis. Recently, the use of open-ended interviews has become more commonly adopted in applied clinical practice, despite no studies evaluating the psychometric properties of such assessments. In the present study, we evaluated the interrater reliability and concurrent validity of an open-ended functional assessment interview. We compared the results of two open-ended indirect assessments conducted with a common caregiver and subsequently conducted functional analyses in an attempt to validate hypotheses generated from the interviews. Interrater agreement for the open-ended interviews was higher than previous research on closed-ended interviews (75%); however, concurrent validity with functional analysis was relatively poor (50%). We discuss these findings in the context of assessment and treatment for severe behavior disorders, as well as best practice methods during functional behavior assessment.

Indexed as

Functional analysisFunctional assessmentIndirect assessmentReliabilityValidity

Identifiers

PMID32231972
PMCPMC7070122

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.