Reliability and Validity of Indirect Assessment Outcomes: Experts versus Caregivers.

Area of Science:

• Behavior Analysis
• Applied Psychology
• Child Psychology

Background:

• Indirect assessments (IAs) like interviews and questionnaires are common for understanding problem behavior.
• However, the reliability and validity of IAs can be limited, potentially due to the assessor's skill set.
• Individuals with expertise in behavior analysis and functional behavior assessment (FBA) may improve IA outcomes.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare the reliability and validity of IAs completed by caregivers versus "experts" (those with behavior analysis/FBA backgrounds).
• To assess agreement on IA outcomes and the accuracy of identified problem behavior functions.

Main Methods:

• Eight children exhibiting problem behavior participated.
• Indirect assessments were completed by both their caregivers and "experts."
• IA outcomes were compared to results from functional analyses (FAs) to determine validity.

Main Results:

• Experts demonstrated higher interrater agreement and item-by-item agreement on IA outcomes.
• Experts were more accurate in identifying the primary functions of problem behavior compared to caregivers.
• Caregivers showed more disagreement and identified multiple incorrect functions.

Conclusions:

• Utilizing experts to complete IAs can significantly enhance their reliability and validity.
• This approach offers a more efficient method for conducting FBAs and developing function-based treatments.
• Improving IA utility through expert involvement has implications for clinical practice and treatment planning.