Evaluation of a Self-Instructional Manual to Teach Multiple-Stimulus Without Replacement Preference Assessments

We evaluated a self-instructional training manual for conducting multiple-stimulus without replacement stimulus preference assessment. The manual was compared to a method description, adapted from the method sections of previous published research articles, in an unbalanced crossover design with 18...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of behavioral education 2015-09, Vol.24 (3), p.289-303
Main Authors: Ramon, Duong, Yu, C. T., Martin, Garry L., Martin, Toby
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Accuracy
Analysis
Behavioral psychology
Behavioral Science and Psychology
Child and School Psychology
College Students
Comparative Analysis
Developmental Disabilities
Education
Educational assessment
Evaluation
Generalization
Guides
Independent Study
Instructional materials
Learning and Instruction
Maintenance
Manuals
Mastery Learning
Original Paper
Preferences
Program Effectiveness
Program Evaluation
Psychology
Recall (Psychology)
Statistical Analysis
Stimuli
Student Attitudes
Teaching Methods
Training
Undergraduate Students
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:We evaluated a self-instructional training manual for conducting multiple-stimulus without replacement stimulus preference assessment. The manual was compared to a method description, adapted from the method sections of previous published research articles, in an unbalanced crossover design with 18 undergraduate university students, randomly assigned to two groups. In addition, a concurrent multiple-baseline design across four participants was embedded in each group. The manual was statistically significantly more effective than the method description in improving performance accuracy for conducting a preference assessment during post-training simulated assessments. Participants who achieved mastery (85 % correct or higher) following training showed strong retention and generalization performance, as well as generalization to assessing a client with developmental disabilities. Lastly, participants rated the manual higher than the method description with regard to being easier to follow and understand and they indicated that the manual provided information for the assessment. Of the six participants who did not meet the mastery criterion after receiving both training methods, all met the mastery criterion after observing a live demonstration of the procedure.
ISSN:1053-0819
1573-3513
DOI:10.1007/s10864-015-9222-3