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.
Articolo in rivista - Articolo scientifico
Behavioral assessment; Direct behavior rating; Formative assessment; Generalizability theory; Teacher ratings;
English
4-ott-2023
2023
101
101251
reserved
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].
File in questo prodotto:
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.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10281/505460
Citazioni
  • Scopus 0
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 0
Social impact