论班图拉观察学习理论的特征及其历史地位

该文从以下三个方面分析了班图拉观察学习理论的特征：（１）强化与认知的结合,（２）行为主义的建构论,（３）交互决定论。作者认为,班图拉对心理学的杰出贡献是他发掘了观察学习这一前人所忽视的学习形式,给了观察学习以应有的地位。作者认为,班图拉在其观察学习的研究中,注重社会因素的影响。以认知的术语阐述观察学习的过程与作用,且注重以人为被试的实验,因而对学习心理学的发展产生重要影响。     

The effects of instructions and calculation procedures on observers' accuracy, agreement, and calculation correctness

Although the quality of observational data is generally evaluated by observer agreement, measures of both observer agreement and accuracy were available in the present study. Videotapes with a criterion protocol were coded by 16 observers. All observers calculated agreement scores both on their own and their partner's data and on a contrived data set misrepresented as data collected by other observers. Compared with agreement scores calculated by the experimenter, observers erroneously inflated their own agreement scores and deflated the agreement scores on the contrived data. Half of the observers (n = 8) had been given instructions emphasizing the importance of accuracy during observation while the other half had been given instructions emphasizing interobserver agreement. Accuracy exceeded agreement for the former group, whereas agreement exceeded accuracy for the latter group. The implications are that agreement should be calculated by the experimenter and that the accuracy-agreement relationship can be altered by differential observer instructions.     

Evaluation of family intervention through unobtrusive audio recordings: experiences in "bugging" children

Five children referred to a child-family intervention program wore a radio transmitter in the home during pre-intervention and termination assessments. The transmitter broadcast to a receiver-recording apparatus in the home (either activated by an interval timer at predetermined "random" times or by parents at predetermined "picked" times). "Picked" times were parent-selected situations during which problems typically occurred (e.g., bedtime). Parents activated the recorder regularly whether or not problems occurred. Child-deviant, parent-negative, and parent-commanding behaviors were significantly higher at the picked times during pretest than at random times. At posttest, behaviors in all three classes were substantially reduced at picked times, but not at random times. For individual subject data, reductions occurred in at least two of the three dependent variables for three of the five cases during random time assessments. In general, the behavioral outcome data corresponded to parent-attitude reports and parent-collected observation data.     

A review of the observational data-collection and reliability procedures reported in The Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis

The research published in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (1968 to 1975) was surveyed for three basic elements: data-collection methods, reliability procedures, and reliability scores. Three-quarters of the studies reported observational data. Most of these studies' observational methods were variations of event recording, trial scoring, interval recording, or time-sample recording. Almost all studies reported assessment of observer reliability, usually total or point-by-point percentage agreement scores. About half the agreement scores were consistently above 90%. Less than one-quarter of the studies reported that reliability was assessed at least once per condition.     

Artifact, bias, and complexity of assessment: the ABCs of reliability

Interobserver agreement (also referred to here as "reliability") is influenced by diverse sources of artifact, bias, and complexity of the assessment procedures. The literature on reliability assessment frequently has focused on the different methods of computing reliability and the circumstances under which these methods are appropriate. Yet, the credence accorded estimates of interobserver agreement, computed by any method, presupposes eliminating sources of bias that can spuriously affect agreement. The present paper reviews evidence pertaining to various sources of artifact and bias, as well as characteristics of assessment that influence interpretation of interobserver agreement. These include reactivity of reliability assessment, observer drift, complexity of response codes and behavioral observations, observer expectancies and feedback, and others. Recommendations are provided for eliminating or minimizing the influence of these factors from interobserver agreement.     

Observer reliability as a function of circumstances of assessment

THREE FACTORS CHARACTERISTIC OF EXPERIMENTAL SETTINGS WERE HYPOTHESIZED TO INFLATE ARTIFACTUALLY THE RELIABILITY OF OBSERVATIONAL RECORDINGS: (a) knowledge by observers of when and by whom their reliability is being assessed, (b) the absence of the experimenter or a monitor to prevent cheating, and (c) computation of reliability within- (versus between-) observer group. Three groups of four observers used a standard nine-category observational code for disruptive behavior in recording from videotapes of a classroom for 22 days. Analyses revealed considerable increases in average occurrence reliability as a function of the main effects of each of the experimental factors. The specific increases in reliability associated with each of the 12 combinations of the experimental factors are presented for each category of behavior. The possible role of observer-training procedures and behavioral definitions as determiners of nonartifactual reliability is discussed.     

A statistical analysis system (SAS) computer program for Markov chain analysis

A computer program for Markov chain analysis is presented and discussed. The program is written in the language of the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) but detailed knowledge of SAS is not required for its use. The program tests hypotheses about the goodness of fit of first- and second-order Markov models. It also tests if transition probabilities are homogeneous between the first and the second half of each sequence.Presented, in part, at the Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy Convention, November 1984.     

Generalization of parent-training results

Two experiments were conducted to assess the generalized effects of several different parent/teacher training programs. In Experiment I it was found that a brief demonstration of how to teach an autistic child new behaviors was sufficient to teach parents how to teach those children those behaviors. However, generalization to new child-target behaviors did not take place. Another parent training program, which did not demonstrate how to teach any one specific child behavior, but was based on teaching the use of general behavior-modification procedures, was effective in teaching the parents how to teach new child-target behaviors. Experiment II then provided analyses of the individual effects of several components of the generalized training program. The results showed that videotape illustrations of the procedures, without the presence of a master teacher, were sufficient to teach the adults. However, sub-parts of the videotapes produced highly specific training results, with each component changing corresponding areas of the adults' behaviors. Viewing of the entire package was necessary before the adults were able to improve the autistic children's behaviors. The study as a whole suggests the importance of obtaining multiple measures of the effects of parent and teacher training programs, including measures of acquisition and generalization of both adult and child behaviors.     

Observation procedure, observer gender, and behavior valence as determinants of sampling error in a behavior assessment analogue

Several factors thought to influence the representativeness of behavioral assessment data were examined in an analogue study using a multifactorial design. Systematic and unsystematic methods of observing group behavior were investigated using 18 male and 18 female observers. Additionally, valence properties of the observed behaviors were inspected. Observers' assessments of a videotape were compared to a criterion code that defined the population of behaviors. Results indicated that systematic observation procedures were more accurate than unsystematic procedures, though this factor interacted with gender of observer and valence of behavior. Additionally, males tended to sample more representatively than females. A third finding indicated that the negatively valenced behavior was overestimated, whereas the neutral and positively valenced behaviors were accurately assessed.