Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40755749›Full record

ArticleJournal of developmental and physical disabilities2025

Evaluating Artificial Intelligence on the Efficacy of Preference Assessments for Preservice Speech-Language Pathologists.

Brenna Griffen, Elizabeth R Lorah, Christine Holyfield, Nicolette Caldwell, John Nosek

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of developmental and physical disabilities, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Brenna GriffenLouisiana State University- Shreveport, Department of Psychology, Shreveport, LA USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9121-1940
Elizabeth R LorahUniversity of Arkansas, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Fayetteville, AR USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4183-4410
Christine HolyfieldUniversity of Arkansas, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Fayetteville, AR USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1057-5599
Nicolette CaldwellUniversity of Arkansas, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Fayetteville, AR USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2133-511X
John NosekTemple University, Department of Computer and Information Sciences, Philadelphia, PA USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) face many barriers to meaningful inclusion, including limited language and communication skills. Professionals, such as speech-language pathologists (SLPs), can provide personalized instruction to promote skill development and inclusion. Providing opportunities for individuals to express preferences and choice, such as the multiple stimulus without replacement preference assessment (MSWO; DeLeon & Iwata 1996), within these programs, further increases skill acquisition and social interaction. However, limitations in professionals' knowledge and skills in performing assessments can be another barrier to meaningful inclusion for individuals with IDD and traditional training methods can be challenging and time consuming. The purpose of the current study was to compare the use of artificial intelligence with traditional pen and paper self-instructional MSWO training methods for five preservice SLPs. Fidelity of implementation and duration of assessment were measured. Results demonstrated a large increase in implementation fidelity for two participants, a moderate increase for two participants and a slight increase for the remaining participant while using artificial intelligence. All participants demonstrated a decrease in scoring errors using artificial intelligence. Regarding duration of implementation, artificial intelligence resulted in a significant reduction for four participants and a moderate reduction for the remaining participant. Results of the follow-up survey suggest that all adult participants and both child participants found that artificial intelligence had a higher treatment acceptability and was more effective at producing socially significant outcomes than traditional methods. Recommendations for clinicians and future research are discussed.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligencePreference assessmentPreservice trainingSpeech-language pathologists

Identifiers

PMID40755749
PMCPMC12316838

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.