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.
Volpe, R., Matta, M., Briesch, A., Owens, J. (2023). Formative behavioral assessment across eight constructs: Dependability of direct behavior ratings and formative behavior rating measures. JOURNAL OF SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGY, 101 [10.1016/j.jsp.2023.101251].
Formative behavioral assessment across eight constructs: Dependability of direct behavior ratings and formative behavior rating measures
Matta M.;
2023
Abstract
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.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
Volpe-2023-Journal of School Psychology-VoR.pdf
Solo gestori archivio
Tipologia di allegato:
Publisher’s Version (Version of Record, VoR)
Licenza:
Tutti i diritti riservati
Dimensione
1.3 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
1.3 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri Richiedi una copia |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.