An Interobserver agreement has been notified to replace accuracy. The Interobserver agreement is calculated by comparing two continuous recordings recorded simultaneously by independent observers. The Interobserver agreement may be seen as a poor substitute for accuracy, as we cannot determine to what extent one of the observer`s recordings constitutes a “true” representation of the behaviour of interest. Nevertheless, the use of methods for calculating inter-observer agreements is considered essential to ensure the specificity of behavioural definitions, as they are refined during the first development of an observation system, to ensure that observers respond consistently to defined behavioural reactions and to assess the effects of observer training. Overall, the high accuracy and calibration accuracy indicate that either the equipment used for the recording was good for the current purpose, or that the observation task was simple or a combination of the two. DataPal reproduces the ideal form of Johnston and Pennypacker`s electronic recording forecasts (1980). Experienced observers and a few beginners held hands on the laptop keyboard, allowing them to enter the codes while discovering target responses without having to look away from the video monitor that shows the criterion (i.e. calibration or reference examples). Another calibration study is needed before determining whether the difference in the observer`s recording reaction affects accuracy (for example. B for touch recorders).
Table 1 shows the average and accuracy range calculated as a percentage for each observer with typically used algorithms (block-by-block chord, precise agreement, and period analysis). Funding for experienced observers exceeded the approval of all measures. No experienced observer recorded at a single meeting was less than 90% exactly because of the Interobserver agreement. Inexperienced observers showed more differences in accuracy (domains, 89% to 96.9% for means, 56.8% to 100% for individual meetings). The means of beginners cut with experienced observers something in the block-by-block agreement, less in exact agreement and least with niche analysis. This finding shows that, in general, beginners reacted somewhat less accurately to the existence of pinching or, at the time of registration, to ±2 s of events in the criteria statements (i.e., they were more delayed by pressing the A button after Pinches). The potential benefits of calibration for applied behavioralists are hypothetical. These speculations need to be thoroughly evaluated through research that illustrates in our region the pros and cons of obtaining the reference values essential to calibration. An important question is the circumstances under which it might be reasonable to predict that calibration could replace the Interobserver agreement as an accepted method of quantifying the quality of our data.
Consider an applied study where the baseline response rate is 6 to 8 responses per minute. Reference values for two or more sessions during the reference period can be obtained from data sets of criteria. The reference values would then be calculated from several additional meetings, while the reaction rate decreased during treatment (for example. B between 6 and 1 responses per minute) and, once again, when low reaction rates were observed during the maintenance phases (for example, less. B of one answer per minute). Reference values of up to 10 meetings would be required to compare the measurements taken by observers for calibrating the study data. The most cost-effective method of obtaining reference values would be the use of a single expert observer to measure calibration reference values (as in Sanson-Fisher et al., 1980; Wolfe et al., 1986). The observer data would be presented graphically as the background data of the study (as it is currently being conducted) ain