A Method for Describing Preschoolers' Activity Preferences

Abstract

We designed a series of analyses to develop a measurement system capable of simultaneously recording the free-play patterns of 20 children in a preschool classroom. Study 1 determined the intermittency with which the location and engagement of each child could be momentarily observed before the accuracy of the measurement was compromised. Results showed that intervals up to 120 s introduced less than 10% measurement error. Study 2 determined the extent of agreement between two observers who simultaneously collected data for 20 children using 30-, 60-, 90-, and 120-s momentary time sampling (MTS) intervals. The three larger intervals resulted in high levels of interobserver agreement (above 90%), whereas the 30-s interval resulted in unacceptably low levels of agreement (less than 80%). By allowing observers to select from among the different MTS intervals via a datasheet array and then collect data with the chosen system, Study 3 determined observers' preferences for the remaining MTS intervals. Both data collectors preferred the 90-s MTS procedure. The sensitivity of the 90-s MTS procedure, which was shown to be accurate, reliable, and preferred, was then demonstrated by its use to describe activity preferences of a classroom of children in Study 4. This system identified high- and low-preference activities for individual children and revealed interesting patterns of response allocation by the group.

Toward Effective and Preferred Programming: A Case for the Objective Measurement of Social Validity with Recipients of Behavior-Change Programs

“…Methods relying on verbal reports to determine the acceptability of behavior-change procedures with intervention agents have served us well so far and their continued use is recommended (e.g., Reimers, Wacker, Cooper, & De Raad, 1992;Witt, Elliott, & Martens, 1984), but it is feasible and possible to apply these objective procedures with the interventionists as well (see Hanley, Cammilleri, Tiger, & Ingvarsson, 2007, for an example).…”

Use of Discontinuous Methods of Data Collection in Behavioral Intervention: Guidelines for Practitioners

“…Simply put, the briefer the interval duration, the less systematic error will be introduced into a measurement system, regardless of whether PIR, WIR, or MTS are implemented (Devine, Rapp, Testa, Henrickson & Schnerch, 2011;Hanley, Cammilleri, Tiger, & Ingvarsson, 2007;Powell et al, 1975;Powell et al, 1977;Rapp et al, 2008). However, the decrease in interval duration requires additional effort from data collectors and therefore increases the amount of human error that is introduced during measurement.…”

“…MTS tends to maintain greater accuracy than PIR at longer interval durations. For instance, Hanley et al (2007) found less than 5% difference in behavioral estimates when MTS intervals were between 5 s and 120 s. Research has not fully articulated the conditions under which longer duration intervals will continue to accurately capture behavior for each system, but is likely related to the variability in behavior within sessions and the duration of observations.…”

Detecting changes in simulated events II: Using variations of momentary time‐sampling to measure changes in duration events

“…Although it is our position that determining sensitivity of interval methods should be the priority of behavior analysts, additional research on observers' preferences for interval methods is clearly warranted (e.g., Hanley et al, 2007). In general, more research is needed to identify methods of data collection that are both sensitive to a wide range of effects and practical for observers in applied settings.…”

“…The purpose of Study 2 was to evaluate the sensitivity of VMTS for detecting small changes in duration events. We focused on 1 min MTS because (1) it detected a relatively low percentage of small changes in the Rapp et al (2008) study and (2) it is a potentially convenient method of data collection in applied settings (see Hanley, Cammilleri, Tiger, & Ingvarsson, 2007). After determining that 1 min VMTS produced only a small increase in sensitivity for detecting small changes, we evaluated 20 s VMTS to determine if there was a lower range at which increased sensitivity could be detected.…”