Gardner F
University of Oxford, Department of Social Policy and Social Work, UK.
Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 2000 Sep;3(3):185-98. doi: 10.1023/a:1009503409699.
This review examines evidence for the utility and validity of direct observational techniques for answering particular research and clinical questions. Observational techniques often involve recording behavior in settings that are relatively unnatural for families. However, it is argued that construct validity of observational methods depends partly on whether the findings are representative of participants' typical everyday behavior. Evidence is reviewed concerning whether observational findings are affected by the presence of the observer, and by two factors which have been neglected in the literature, namely the type of task imposed by the observer (e.g., directing parent and child to play rather than observing spontaneous interaction) and the location of the observations (e.g., clinic or laboratory rather than home). The review suggests that the presence of an observer does not necessarily distort the nature of interactions. However, the small number of studies in this area suggest that interactions in structured or artificial settings are not necessarily representative of those normally taking place at home.
本综述考察了直接观察技术在回答特定研究和临床问题方面的效用和有效性证据。观察技术通常涉及在对家庭来说相对不自然的环境中记录行为。然而，有人认为观察方法的结构效度部分取决于研究结果是否代表参与者的典型日常行为。本文回顾了关于观察结果是否受到观察者在场影响的证据，以及文献中被忽视的两个因素，即观察者施加的任务类型（例如，指导父母和孩子玩耍而不是观察自然互动）和观察地点（例如，诊所或实验室而不是家里）。该综述表明，观察者的在场不一定会扭曲互动的性质。然而，该领域的少量研究表明，结构化或人为环境中的互动不一定代表通常在家中发生的互动。
