Skip to main content
Log in

Comparing Accuracy of Descriptive Assessment Methods Following a Group Training and Feedback

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Behavioral Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As one component of a functional behavioral assessment, descriptive assessments (DA) can help determine the maintaining variable of a student’s problem behavior in school. School districts often employ board-certified behavior analysts as consultants to conduct DAs by observing a student and recording the environmental variables surrounding problem behavior. However, consultants may have to rely on school personnel to conduct DAs due to environmental constraints. The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which 18 school staff accurately collected DA data with two types of recording formats, narrative and structured, prior to and after receiving a group training that consisted of verbal review and group feedback. Results based on visual analysis indicate that (a) 4 participants engaged in high levels of accurate, narrative DA recording in baseline; (b) 10 of 14 participants reached mastery criteria after training for both narrative and structured DA recording formats; and (c) 4 participants did not reach mastery criteria after training for either recording format. Despite sub-mastery performance by some participants, supplemental statistical analyses and visual inspection indicate that the group training improved all participants’ accuracy from baseline. These findings have important implications for training school staff members to collect DA data.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would also like to thank research assistants, Tiffany Haeussler and Bailey Williams, for assisting the authors with intercoder agreement.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Odessa Luna.

Ethics declarations

Human and Animal Rights

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Appendices

Appendix 1

figure a
figure b

Appendix 2

Operational Definitions for Students

Aggression (A) any instance of biting, hitting, scratching, kicking, pushing, shoving, hair pulling, pinching, head butting.

Self-injurious behavior (SIB) any instance of contact with their own body with an open or closed hand, including head hitting and biting.

Disruption (D) any instance of a person throwing an object, swiping objects, tearing, ripping, turning over furniture.

Inappropriate vocalization (IV) any vocalization that is above conversational level, any instance using derogatory language, or making threats to cause harm to another person or to property.

Definitions of Antecedent Events

No attention/low attention (LA) 3 or more seconds without vocal or physical interaction from another person.

Restricted access (RA) the removal of any item that the student was previously allowed to manipulate or consume or when the student is denied access to requested items.

Demand (DE) any vocal, model, gestural, or physical prompts to engage in a behavior or the presence on ongoing instructional activity.

Definitions of Consequence Events

Attention (ATT) person vocally or physically interacting with the student including reprimands (e.g., “No, stop doing that!”) and redirection statements to appropriate behavior, task, or another activity.

Access to materials (ACC) a change in the environment in which presentation of materials that were previously requested are withheld.

Escape (ESC) the removal of demand and instructional materials or the absence of any prompting if the student stops engaging in the task for at least 3 s.

Appendix 3

figure c
figure d
figure e

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Luna, O., Petri, J.M., Palmier, J. et al. Comparing Accuracy of Descriptive Assessment Methods Following a Group Training and Feedback. J Behav Educ 27, 488–508 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-018-9297-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-018-9297-8

Keywords

Navigation