共 42 条
Formative behavioral assessment across eight constructs: Dependability of direct behavior ratings and formative behavior rating measures
被引:0
|作者:
Volpe, Robert J.
[1
]
Matta, Michael
[2
]
Briesch, Amy M.
[1
]
Owens, Julie S.
[3
]
机构:
[1] Northeastern Univ, Dept Appl Psychol, 360 Huntington Ave, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[2] Univ Houston, Dept Psychol Hlth & Learning Sci, Farish Hall 429,3657 Cullen Blvd, Houston, TX 77204 USA
[3] Ohio Univ, Dept Psychol, Porter Hall 200, Athens, OH 45701 USA
关键词:
Behavioral assessment;
Direct behavior rating;
Formative assessment;
Generalizability theory;
Teacher ratings;
MULTIPLE IMPUTATION;
ACADEMIC ENGAGEMENT;
CHAINED EQUATIONS;
SINGLE-ITEM;
GENERALIZABILITY;
SCALES;
DBR;
IMPLEMENTATION;
SENSITIVITY;
FRAMEWORK;
D O I:
10.1016/j.jsp.2023.101251
中图分类号:
G44 [教育心理学];
学科分类号:
0402 ;
040202 ;
摘要:
Due to their promise as a feasible tool for evaluating the effects of school-based interventions, Direct Behavior Ratings (DBR) have received much research attention over the past 2 decades. Although DBR methodology has demonstrated much promise, favorable psychometric characteristics only have been demonstrated for tools measuring a small number of constructs. Likewise, although a variety of methods of DBR have been proposed, most extant studies have focused on the use of single-item methods. The present study examined the dependability of four methods of formative behavioral assessment (i.e., single-item and multi-item ratings administered either daily [DBR] or weekly [formative behavior rating measures or FBRM]) across eight psychological constructs (i.e., interpersonal skills, academic engagement, organizational skills, disruptive behavior, oppositional behavior, interpersonal conflict, anxious depressed, and social withdrawal). School-based professionals (N = 91; i.e., teachers, paraprofessionals, and intervention specialists) each rated one student across all eight constructs after being assigned to one of the four assessment conditions. Dependability estimates varied substantially across methods and constructs (range = 0.75-0.96), although findings of the present study support the use of the broad set of formative assessment tools evaluated.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文