Effects of computer‐aided instruction on the implementation of the MSWO stimulus preference assessment
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
This study evaluated a self‐instructional online training package to teach students and staff to conduct a stimulus preference assessment using the multiple‐stimulus without replacement procedure. The training package included a self‐instructional manual and video modeling and was delivered online. Training was evaluated using a multiple‐probe design across a total of six university students and four staff members. Overall, students improved from a mean of 35% correct in baseline to a mean of 94% correct following training, and staff improved from a mean of 23% correct in baseline to a mean of 87% correct following training. During retention and generalization simulated assessments conducted from 7 to 17 days following training, all participants performed considerably above baseline. The online delivery of the self‐instructional manual plus video modeling has tremendous potential for providing an effective method for teaching individuals to conduct stimulus preference assessments without face‐to‐face instruction.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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