ArticleBehavior analysis (Washington, D.C.)2022
Validating Human-Operant Software: A Case Example.
Article in Behavior analysis (Washington, D.C.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Translational evaluation of on/off alternative reinforcement cycling.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Human-operant experiments conducted with computer software facilitate translational research by assessing the generality of basic research findings and exploring previously untested predictions about behavior in a cost-effective and efficient manner. However, previous human-operant research with computer-based tasks has included little or no description of rigorous validation procedures for the experimental apparatus (i.e., the software used in the experiment). This omission, combined with a general lack of guidance regarding how to thoroughly validate experimental software, introduces the possibility that nascent researchers may insufficiently validate their computer-based apparatus. In this paper, we provide a case example to demonstrate the rigor required to validate experimental software by describing the procedures we used to validate the apparatus reported by Smith and Greer (2021) to assess relapse via a crowdsourcing platform. The validation procedures identified several issues with early iterations of the software, demonstrating how failing to validate human-operant software can introduce confounds into similar experiments. We describe our validation procedures in detail so that others exploring similar computer-based research may have an exemplar for the rigorous testing needed to validate computer software to ensure precision and reliability in computer-based, human-operant experiments.
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.