MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7009601338

Evaluation of a self-instructional manual for conducting paired-stimulus preference assessment with individuals with developmental disabilities

2015· dissertation· en· W7009601338 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2015
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicBehavioral and Psychological Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPreferencePopulationSet (abstract data type)Identification (biology)Work (physics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ample research has shown that direct preference assessment is an effective method for identifying reinforcers for people with developmental disabilities with limited communication skills. Research has also shown that self-instructional manuals are an effective and efficient means for teaching individuals to implement a variety of procedures with individuals with developmental disabilities. I prepared a self-instructional manual to teach individuals to conduct a paired-stimulus (PS) direct preference assessment procedure. I used a concurrent modified multiple-baseline design across participants, combined with an unbalanced crossover design between groups, to evaluate the effectiveness of the manual to teach staff and university students to conduct the assessment. The manual was compared to a description of the assessment procedure adapted from the method sections of published research articles. Four university students and six staff members who work with individuals with developmental disabilities participated. None of the participants had previous experience conducting direct preference assessments. No participant met mastery criterion during simulated preference assessments before training. All participants met mastery criterion (80% correct or higher during a PS preference assessment) after studying the self-instructional manual. No participants met mastery after studying the method description adapted from published studies; participants subsequently met mastery criteria following study of the manual. Across all phases of the study, staff members performed with slightly higher accuracy than students. Training time required to master the self-instructional manual averaged 43 min. Participants’ performance remained at high levels during follow-up and generalization sessions. Participants also rated the self-instructional manual more favourably than the method description on a social validity questionnaire. The self-instructional manual offers an efficient, low-cost alternative to face-to-face training for teaching individuals to conduct paired-stimulus preference assessments.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.295
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.285
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.070 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)Same topicBehavioral and Psychological StudiesFrench-language works237,207