2017
DOI: 10.1002/jaba.423
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of computer‐based training on procedural modifications to standard functional analyses

Abstract: Few studies have evaluated methods for training decision-making when functional analysis data are undifferentiated. The current study evaluated computer-based training to teach 20 graduate students to arrange functional analysis conditions, analyze functional analysis data, and implement procedural modifications. Participants were exposed to training materials using interactive software during a 1-day session. Following the training, mean scores on the posttest, novel cases probe, and maintenance probe increas… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3

Relationship

3
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
(55 reference statements)
0
11
1
Order By: Relevance
“…CBI resulted in mastery‐level responding for most participants for training parent–child interactions (Blackman et al, 2019); graph creation (Berkman et al, 2019); DTI (Eldevik et al, 2013; Geiger et al, 2018; Gerencser et al, 2018; Higbee et al, 2016; Nosik et al, 2013; Nosik & Williams, 2011; Pollard et al, 2014); photographic activity schedules (Gerencser et al, 2017); interactions with consumers' parents (Ingvarsson & Hanley, 2006); SPAs (Marano et al, 2020); visual analysis of graphs (O'Grady et al, 2018; Schnell et al, 2018; Wolfe & Slocum, 2015); detecting antecedents and consequences of problem behavior (Scott et al, 2018); and imitation interventions (Wainer & Ingersoll, 2013).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…CBI resulted in mastery‐level responding for most participants for training parent–child interactions (Blackman et al, 2019); graph creation (Berkman et al, 2019); DTI (Eldevik et al, 2013; Geiger et al, 2018; Gerencser et al, 2018; Higbee et al, 2016; Nosik et al, 2013; Nosik & Williams, 2011; Pollard et al, 2014); photographic activity schedules (Gerencser et al, 2017); interactions with consumers' parents (Ingvarsson & Hanley, 2006); SPAs (Marano et al, 2020); visual analysis of graphs (O'Grady et al, 2018; Schnell et al, 2018; Wolfe & Slocum, 2015); detecting antecedents and consequences of problem behavior (Scott et al, 2018); and imitation interventions (Wainer & Ingersoll, 2013).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One possible solution for the described limitations is automation, or an individualized technology, like that of computer-based instruction (e.g., Keller, 1968). Computer-based instruction (CBI) has been one method used to train practitioners across a variety of skills such as assessment, diagnostic, and treatment decision-making (e.g., Lambert, 1989; Schnell et al, 2017). CBI has been shown as an efficient medium to teach fundamentals of procedural decision making when conducting an FA (Schnell et al, 2017).…”
Section: Using Computer-based Training To Teach Practitioners Trial-b...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Computer-based instruction (CBI) has been one method used to train practitioners across a variety of skills such as assessment, diagnostic, and treatment decision-making (e.g., Lambert, 1989; Schnell et al, 2017). CBI has been shown as an efficient medium to teach fundamentals of procedural decision making when conducting an FA (Schnell et al, 2017). Components of CBI typically include clear and specific learning objectives with content-specific materials presented via a computer (e.g., Williams & Zahed, 1996), may include videos (e.g., Moore & Fisher, 2007), and interactive quizzes for comprehension checks (e.g., Schnell et al, 2017).…”
Section: Using Computer-based Training To Teach Practitioners Trial-b...mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, all participants agreed or strongly agreed that the training was clear to them (mean 4.5, range 4-5) and that it was easy to visually analyze graphs following training (mean 4.25, range 4-5). To assess the outcomes, participant scores on the first baseline measure and last intervention measure, across all measures, were converted to relevant letter grades used in university courses by using the following conversion: 100% = A, 90% = A−, 80% = B−, 70% = C−, 60% = D, and below 60% = F (Fienup & Critchfield, 2010;Schnell, Sidener, DeBar, Vladescu, & Kahng, 2014). These data were summarized as the percentage of letter grades per measure.…”
Section: Social Validity Measuresmentioning
confidence: 99%