MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3078150746

A Comparison of the Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Post-Training Outcomes of Traditional Behavioral Skills Training and Asynchronous Remote Training

2020· article· en· W3078150746 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dani Pizzella

Bibliographic record

VenueIRL - University of Missouri, St. Louis (University of Missouri–St. Louis) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral and Psychological Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Graduate EducationUniversity of Missouri-St. Louis
KeywordsTraining (meteorology)PsychologyComputer scienceMedical educationApplied psychologyMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While applied behavior analysis (ABA) is the most commonly recommended therapy for individuals with Autism spectrum disorders (New York State Department of Health, 1999; Surgeon General, 1999), there is a significant lack of board certified behavior analysts (BCBAs; Bethune & Kiser, 2017; Maglione, Kadiyala, Kress, Hastings, & OʹHanlon, 2016). Telehealth may help to increase the availability of training in behavior analytic procedures, however, BCBAs have been slow to adopt remote training measures (Tomlinson, Gore, & McGill, 2018). This may be due to the in-vivo training requirements of common behavior analytic training procedures. This research compares traditional, face-to-face behavioral skills training (BST) to remote training in order to determine if the success attributed to BST is replicable through remote education. This research also investigates how the post-training outcomes of traditional BST compare to asynchronous online training with video modeling and feedback. In order to evaluate this, the researcher trained two groups on multiple stimulus without replacement preference assessment procedures. The first group received traditional behavioral skills training in person with immediate feedback while the second group received all training through pre-recorded video with self-monitoring and delayed performance feedback. Results indicated that both methods were similarly effective with in-person training being slightly more efficient for trainees while remote training was significantly more efficient for the trainer. The research not only evaluated the post-training outcomes of both methodologies but also examined the social validity of both training models. Both procedures had high social validity indicating that these methods could be used in the future. These results not only add to the body of literature on remote training in behavior analytic interventions, but also look at areas of improvement in order to make future training of behavior analysts more effective. More broadly, this research could help to disseminate ABA and remote education so people in more remote locations have equitable access to services.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.508
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.142
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.156 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIRL - University of Missouri, St. Louis (University of Missouri–St. Louis)Same topicBehavioral and Psychological StudiesFrench-language works237,207