Department of Behavioral Psychology, Kennedy Krieger Institute.
Department of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
J Appl Behav Anal. 2020 Sep;53(4):2330-2338. doi: 10.1002/jaba.710. Epub 2020 Apr 26.
Scheithauer et al. (2020) recently demonstrated that differences in the source of baseline data extracted from a functional analysis (FA) may not affect subsequent clinical decision-making in comparison to a standard baseline. These outcomes warrant additional quantitative examination, as correspondence of visual analysis has sometimes been reported to be unreliable. In the current study, we quantified the occurrence of false positives within a dataset of FA and baseline data using the dual-criteria (DC) and conservative dual-criteria (CDC) methods. Results of this quantitative analysis suggest that false positives were more likely when using FA data (rather than original baseline data) as the initial treatment baseline. However, both sources of baseline data may have acceptably low levels of false positives for practical use. Overall, the findings provide preliminary quantitative support for the conclusion that determinations of effective treatment may be easily obtained using different sources of baseline data.
舍陶尔等人（2020 年）最近表明，与标准基线相比，从功能分析（FA）中提取的基线数据的来源差异可能不会影响后续的临床决策。这些结果需要进一步进行定量检查，因为视觉分析的一致性有时被报道为不可靠。在本研究中，我们使用双标准（DC）和保守双标准（CDC）方法在 FA 和基线数据的数据集内量化了假阳性的发生。这项定量分析的结果表明，当使用 FA 数据（而不是原始基线数据）作为初始治疗基线时，假阳性更有可能发生。然而，对于实际应用而言，两种基线数据来源都可能具有可接受的低水平假阳性。总体而言，这些发现为以下结论提供了初步的定量支持，即使用不同的基线数据来源可能很容易确定有效的治疗方法。
