![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
The current study served to extend previous research on scaling construction of Direct Behavior Rating (DBR) in order to explore the potential flexibility of DBR to fit various intervention contexts. One hundred ninety-eight undergraduate students viewed the same classroom footage but rated student behavior using one of eight randomly assigned scales (i.e., differed with regard to number of gradients, length of scale, discrete vs. continuous). Descriptively, mean ratings typically fell within the same scale gradient across conditions. Furthermore, results of generalizability analyses revealed negligible variance attributable to the facet of scale type or interaction terms involving this facet. Implications for DBR scale construction within the context of intervention-related decision making are presented and discussed.
References
Section:
|
Bendig, A. W. (1954). Reliability and the number of rating scale categories.Journal of Applied Psychology, 38, 38–40. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Brennan, R. L. (2001). Generalizability theory. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Briesch, A. M., Chafouleas, S. M., Riley-Tillman, T. C. (2010). Generalizability and dependability of behavior assessment methods to estimate academic engagement: A comparison of systematic direct observation and Direct Behavior Rating. School Psychology Review, 39, 408–421. Google Scholar | ISI | |
|
Chafouleas, S. M., Briesch, A. M., Riley-Tillman, T. C., Christ, T. J., Black, A., Kilgus, S. P. (2010). An investigation of the generalizability and dependability of Direct Behavior Rating– Single Item Scales (DBR-SIS) to measure academic engagement and disruptive behavior of middle school students. Journal of School Psychology, 48, 219–246. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2010.02.001 Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Chafouleas, S. M., Christ, T. J., Riley-Tillman, T. C. (2009). Generalizability of scaling gradients on direct behavior ratings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 157–173. doi:10.1177/0013164408322005 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Chafouleas, S. M., Christ, T., Riley-Tillman, T. C., Briesch, A. M., Chanese, J. A. (2007). Generalizability and dependability of Daily Behavior Report Cards to measure social behavior of preschoolers. School Psychology Review, 36, 63–79. Google Scholar | ISI | |
|
Chafouleas, S. M., Riley-Tillman, T. C., McDougal, J. L. (2002). Good, bad, or in-between: How does the daily behavior report card rate? Psychology in the Schools, 39, 157–169. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Chafouleas, S. M., Riley-Tillman, T. C., Sassu, K. A. (2006). Acceptability and reported use of daily behavior report cards among teachers. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8, 174–182. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Chafouleas, S. M., Riley-Tillman, T. C., Sassu, K. A., LaFrance, M. J., Patwa, S. S. (2007). Daily behavior report cards: An investigation of the consistency of on-task data across raters and methods. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9, 30–37. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Chafouleas, S. M., Riley-Tillman, T. C., Sugai, G. (2007). School-based behavioral assessment: Informing intervention and instruction. New York, NY: Guilford. Google Scholar | |
|
Chafouleas, S. M., Volpe, R. J., Gresham, F. M., Cook, C. R. (2010). School-based behavioral assessment within problem-solving models: Current status and future directions. School Psychology Review, 39, 343–349. Google Scholar | ISI | |
|
Christ, T. J., Boice, C. H. (2009). Rating scale items: A brief review of nomenclature, components, and formatting to inform the development of Direct Behavior Rating (DBR). Assessment for Effective Intervention, 34, 242–250. doi:10.1177/1534508409336182 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Christ, T. J., Riley-Tillman, T. C., Chafouleas, S. M. (2009). Foundation for the development and use of Direct Behavior Rating (DBR) to assess and evaluate student behavior. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 34, 201–213. doi:10.1177/1534508409340390 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | |
|
Cicchetti, D. V., Showalter, D., Tyrer, P. J. (1985). Scale categories on levels of interrater reliability: A Monte Carlo investigation. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 31–36. doi:10.1177/014662168500900103 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Matell, M. S., Jacoby, J. (1972). Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likert-scale items? Effects of testing time and scale properties. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 506–509. doi:10.1037/h0033601 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Preston, C. C., Colman, A. M. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: Reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychologica, 104, 1–15. doi:10.1016/S0001-6918(99)00050-5 Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Ramsey, J. O. (1973). The effect of number of categories in rating scales on precision of estimation of scale values. Psychometrika, 38, 513–532. doi:10.1007/BF02291492 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Rasmussen, J. L. (1989). Analysis of Likert-scale data: A reinterpretation of Gregoire and Driver. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 167–170. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.105.1.167 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Revill, S. I., Robinson, J. O., Rosen, M., Hogg, M. I. (1976). The reliability of a linear analogue for evaluating pain. Anasthesia, 31, 1191–1198. Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI | |
|
Riley-Tillman, T. C., Chafouleas, S. M., Briesch, A. M., Eckert, T. L. (2008). Daily behavior report cards and systematic direct observation: An investigation of the acceptability, reported training and use, and decision reliability among school psychologists, Journal of Behavioral Education, 17, 313–327. doi:10.1007/s10864-008-9070-5 Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Riley-Tillman, T. C., Christ, T. J., Chafouleas, S. M., Boice-Mallach, C. H., Briesch, A. M. (2010). The impact of observation duration on the accuracy of data obtained from Direct Behavior Rating (DBR). Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 13, 119–128. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Shapiro, E. S. (2004). Academic skills problems workbook. New York, NY: Guilford. Google Scholar | |
|
Sterling-Turner, H. E., Watson, T. S. (2002). An analog investigation of the relationship between treatment acceptability and treatment integrity. Journal of Behavioral Education, 11, 39–50. doi:10.1023/A:1014333305011 Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Sterling-Turner, H. E., Watson, T. S., Wildmon, M., Watkins, C., Little, E. (2001). Investigating the relationship between training type and treatment integrity. School Psychology Quarterly, 16, 56–67. doi:10.1521/scpq.16.1.56.19157 Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Vannest, K., Davis, J., Davis, C., Mason, B. A., Burke, M. D. (2010). Effective intervention for behavior with a Daily Behavior Report Card. School Psychology Review, 39, 654–672. Google Scholar | ISI | |
|
Weng, L. (2004). Impact of the number of response categories and anchor labels on coefficient alpha and test-retest reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 956–972. doi:10.1177/0013164404268674 Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI |
