English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Computer-aided behavior observation is gradually supplanting paper-and-pencil approaches to behavior observation, but there is a dearth of evidence on the relative accuracy of paper-and-pencil versus computer-aided behavior observation formats in the literature. The current study evaluated the accuracy resulting from paper-and-pencil observation and from two computer-aided behavior observation methods: The Observer XT® desktop software and the Big Eye Observer® smartphone application. Twelve postgraduate students without behavior observation experience underwent a behavior observation training protocol. As part of a multi-element design, participants recorded 60 real clinical sessions randomly assigned to one of the three observation methods. All three methods produced high levels of accuracy (paper-and-pencil, .88 ± .01; The Observer XT, .84 ± .01; Big Eye Observer, .84 ± .01). A mixed linear model analysis indicated that paper-and-pencil observation produced marginally superior accuracy values, whereas the accuracy produced by The Observer XT and Big Eye Observer did not differ. The analysis suggests that accuracy of recording was mediated by the number of recordable events in the observation videos. The implications of these findings for research and practice are discussed.

Accuracy of paper-and-pencil systematic observation versus computer-aided systems