Effects of nonparticipant observation on teacher and pupil classroom behavior.

Simultaneous observational recordings were made in vivo, via an observation mirror, and via closed circuit television. Three of nine observers had extensive experience recording behavior in vivo; three had extensive experience recording behavior via mirror; and three had extensive experience recording via television. Observers recorded nine categories of disruptive behavior for children in a special class setting. Frequencies of behavior recorded in vivo, via mirror, and via television differed significantly for only one category, vocalization. There were no significant main effects or interactions involving the observers' previous experience. Occurrence reliability coefficients computed within and between media demonstrated the similarity of observer agreement in all three media. Data collection procedures using an observational mirror or closed circuit television appear to be reasonable alternatives to in vivo observation in circumstances similar to those in the present study.

mentioning

confidence: 99%

COMPARISON OF OBSERVATIONAL RECORDINGS IN VIVO, VIA MIRROR, AND VIA TELEVISION

Kent

O’Leary

Dietz

et al. 1979

“…Research has demonstrated that the presence of observers in applied settings influences subject performance (Mercatoris and Craighead, 1974;Surratt, Ulrich, and Hawkins, 1969;White, 1977), although there are exceptions (Hagen, Craighead, and Paul, 1975). The reactivity of obtrusive assessment even has been evident in research on observer behavior (e.g., Kent, O'Leary, Diament, and Dietz, 1974; Romanczyk, Kent, Diament, and O'Leary, 1973).…”

Section: Reactivity Of Behavioral Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unobtrusive Measures in Behavioral Assessment

Kazdin

1979

109

A major distinguishing characteristic of behavioral assessment is the direct assessment of overt behavior. Direct assessment is assumed to provide a sample of behavior that reflects client performance in the situation in which behavior is assessed, even if the assessment procedures were not implemented. Yet, in the majority of investigations, behavioral assessment procedures are obtrusive, i.e., subjects are aware that their behavior is being assessed. The potential problem with obtrusive assessment is that it may be reactive, i.e., affect how subjects perform. Recent research has demonstrated that obtrusive observations often are reactive and that behaviors assessed under obtrusive and unobtrusive conditions bear little relation. From methodological and applied perspectives, additional attention needs to be given to unobtrusive measures of behavior change. The present paper illustrates unobtrusive measures in behavior modification including direct observations, archival records, and physical traces of performance. In addition, validation and assessment problems, questions about the obtrusiveness of the measures, and ethical issues are discussed.

“…. Under some circumstances, however, subject reactivity has not been found (Dubey, Kent, O'Leary, and Broderick, 1977;Hagen, Craighead, and Paul, 1975;Johnson and Bolstad, 1973;Martin, Gelfand, and Hartmann, 1971;Mercatoris and Craighead, 1974). Such biased data may threaten internal validity and produce results that may be due to observational variables, rather than independent variables.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Witnessing Consequences on the Behavioral Recordings of Experimental Observers

Harris¹,

Ciminero²

1978

The cueing effects of interviewer praise contingent on a target behavior and expectation of behavior change were examined with six observers. Experiment I investigated the effect of cues in conjunction with expectation. Experiment II assessed the relative contributions of cues and expectation, and Experiment III examined the effect of cues in the absence of expectation. The frequencies of two behaviors, client eye contact and face touching, were held constant throughout a series of videotaped interviews between an "interviewer" and a "client". A within-subjects design was used in each experiment. During baseline conditions, praise did not follow eye contact by the client on the videotape. In all experimental conditions, praise statements from the interviewer followed each occurrence of eye contact with an equal number of praises delivered at random times when there was no eye contact. Three of the six observers dramatically increased their recordings of eye contact during the first experimental phase, but these increases were not replicated in a second praise condition. There were no systematic changes in recorded face touching. Witnessing the delivery of consequences, rather than expectation seemed to be responsible for the effect. This potential threat to the internal validity of studies using observational data may go undetected by interobserver agreement checks.