Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35098027›Full record

ArticlePerspectives on behavior science2021

Machine Learning for Supplementing Behavioral Assessment.

Jordan D Bailey, Jonathan C Baker, Mark J Rzeszutek, Marc J Lanovaz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Lexicon-Based Sentiment Analysis in Behavioral Research.Perspectives on behavior science · 2024
    Article
  3. 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.

Jordan D BaileyDepartment of Psychology, Franciscan Missionaries of Our Lady University, Baton Rouge, LA 70808 USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6616-6287
Jonathan C BakerWestern Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI USA.
Mark J RzeszutekWestern Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI USA.
Marc J LanovazUniversité de Montréal, Montreal, QC Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Functional analysisIndirect assessmentMachine learningQABF

Identifiers

PMID35098027
PMCPMC8738819

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.