Bergmann Samantha, Long Brian P, St Peter Claire C, Brand Denys, Strum Marcus D, Han Justin B, Wallace Michele D
Department of Behavior Analysis, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA.
Department of Psychology, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA.
J Appl Behav Anal. 2023;56(4):708-719. doi: 10.1002/jaba.1015. Epub 2023 Aug 10.
Few reviews on procedural fidelity-the degree to which procedures are implemented as designed-provide details to gauge the quality of fidelity reporting in behavior-analytic research. This review focused on experiments in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (2006-2021) with "integrity" or "fidelity" in the abstract or body. When fidelity data were collected, the coders characterized measurement details (e.g., description of calculation, report of single or multiple values, frequency of fidelity checks, checklist use). The researchers found increasing trends in describing the calculation(s), reporting multiple values, and stating the frequency of measurement. Few studies described using a checklist. Most studies reported fidelity as a percentage, with high obtained values (M = 97%). When not collecting fidelity data was stated as a limitation, authors were unlikely to provide a rationale for the omission. We discuss recommendations for reporting procedural fidelity to increase the quality of and transparency in behavior-analytic research.
很少有关于程序保真度(即程序按设计实施的程度)的综述能提供详细信息来衡量行为分析研究中保真度报告的质量。本综述聚焦于《应用行为分析杂志》(2006 - 2021年)中摘要或正文包含“完整性”或“保真度”的实验。当收集保真度数据时,编码人员对测量细节进行了描述(例如,计算描述、单值或多值报告、保真度检查频率、清单使用情况)。研究人员发现,在描述计算方法、报告多个值以及说明测量频率方面呈上升趋势。很少有研究描述使用了清单。大多数研究将保真度报告为百分比,获得的值较高(M = 97%)。当未收集保真度数据被列为一项局限时,作者不太可能为这种遗漏提供理由。我们讨论了关于报告程序保真度的建议,以提高行为分析研究的质量和透明度。