Faculty of Education, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
J Appl Behav Anal. 2024 Jul;57(3):542-559. doi: 10.1002/jaba.1092. Epub 2024 Jun 7.
We conducted a systematic review of studies published in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis between 2010 and 2020 to identify reports of social validity. A total of 160 studies (17.60%) published during this time included a measure of social validity. For each study, we extracted data on (a) the dimensions of social validity, (b) the methods used for collecting social-validity data, (c) the respondents, and (d) when social-validity data were collected. Most social-validity assessments measured the acceptability of intervention procedures and outcomes, with fewer evaluating goals. The most common method for collecting social validity data was Likert-type rating scales, followed by non-Likert-type questionnaires. In most studies, the direct recipients of the intervention provided feedback on social validity. Social-validity assessment data were often collected at the conclusion of the study. We provide examples of social-validity measurement methods, discuss their strengths and limitations, and provide recommendations for improving the future collection and reporting of social-validity data.
我们对 2010 年至 2020 年期间发表在《应用行为分析杂志》上的研究进行了系统回顾,以确定社会有效性的报告。在此期间发表的总共 160 项研究(17.60%)包括了对社会有效性的衡量。对于每一项研究,我们提取了关于(a)社会有效性的维度,(b)收集社会有效性数据所使用的方法,(c)受访者,以及(d)何时收集社会有效性数据的数据。大多数社会有效性评估衡量了干预程序和结果的可接受性,而较少评估目标。收集社会有效性数据最常用的方法是李克特量表,其次是非李克特量表问卷。在大多数研究中,干预的直接接受者对社会有效性提供了反馈。社会有效性评估数据通常在研究结束时收集。我们提供了社会有效性测量方法的示例,讨论了它们的优缺点,并为改进未来社会有效性数据的收集和报告提供了建议。