Agreement of Function Across Methods Used in School-Based Functional Assessment With Preadolescent and Adolescent Students
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As we begin to apply functional assessment procedures in mainstream educational settings, there is a need to explore options for identifying behavior function that are not only effective but efficient and practical for school personnel to employ. Attempts to simplify the functional assessment process are evidenced by the development of informant assessment measures (e.g., interviews, rating scales). In this study, the agreement (i.e., on relative rankings and primary function) across sources of information regarding behavior function was examined for 19 students in a middle school setting. These measures included teacher ratings, student ratings, student interviews, observer ratings, and conditional probabilities. In addition, for 1 student, whether information obtained through these sources was consistent with that obtained through a brief analog analysis of function was examined. Results indicated low agreement regarding rank order of behavior function and on primary function across all sources of information.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it