ArticlePerspectives on behavior science2021
Machine Learning for Supplementing Behavioral Assessment.
Article in Perspectives on behavior science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Promises and Possibilities of Artificial Intelligence in the Delivery of Behavior Analytic Services.Behavior analysis in practice · 2024Review
- Lexicon-Based Sentiment Analysis in Behavioral Research.Perspectives on behavior science · 2024Article
- Validating a Computerized Program for Supporting Visual Analysis During Functional Analysis: The Problem Behavior Multilevel Interpreter (PB.MI).Behavior analysis in practice · 2022Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Questions About Behavioral Function (QABF) has a high degree of convergent validity, but there is still a lack of agreement between the results of the assessment and the results of experimental function analysis. Machine learning (ML) may improve the validity of assessments by using data to build a mathematical model for more accurate predictions. We used published QABF and subsequent functional analyses to train ML models to identify the function of behavior. With ML models, predictions can be made from indirect assessment results based on learning from results of past experimental functional analyses. In Experiment 1, we compared the results of five algorithms to the QABF criteria using a leave-one-out cross-validation approach. All five outperformed the QABF assessment on multilabel accuracy (i.e., percentage of predictions with the presence or absence of each function indicated correctly), but false negatives remained an issue. In Experiment 2, we augmented the data with 1,000 artificial samples to train and test an artificial neural network. The artificial network outperformed other models on all measures of accuracy. The results indicated that ML could be used to inform conditions that should be present in a functional analysis. Therefore, this study represents a proof-of-concept for the application of machine learning to functional assessment.
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.