Skip to main content
Log in

Social and solipsistic observer training: Effects on agreement with a criterion

  • Published:
Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The need to train accurate, not necessarily agreeing, observers is discussed. Intraobserver consistency as an intermediate criterion in such training is proposed and contrasted with the more familiar criterion of interobserver agreement. Videotaped observations of social interactions between handicapped and nonhandicapped preschoolers provided the medium for examining the criterion agreement of four observers trained against each type of standard. Observers generally failed to show high levels of criterion agreement whether trained to a within- or to a between-observer agreement standard. The results varied somewhat with the frequency of behaviors, however. Correlations between interobserver agreement and intraobserver consistency were variable but somewhat higher when interobserver agreement was the training criterion than when intraobserver consistency was the criterion. Correlations between interobserver agreement and criterion agreement ranged from — .16 to .89 during interobserver agreement training. Correlations between intraobserver consistency and criterion agreement ranged from — .23 to .99 during intraobserver consistency training.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allport, G. W. (1937).Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum, W. M. (1975). Time allocation in human vigilance.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 23(1), 45–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bijou, S. W., Peterson, R. F., & Ault, M. H. (1968). A method to integrate descriptive and experimental field studies at the level of data and empirical concepts.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 175–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boice, R. (1983). Observational skills.Psychological Bulletin, 93, 3–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cone, J. D. (1981). Psychometric considerations. In M. Hersen & A. S. Bellack (Eds.),Behavioral assessment: A practical handbook (2nd ed., pp. 38–68). New York: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cone, J. D., & Foster, S. L. (1982). Direct observation in clinical psychology. In P. C. Kendall & J. N. Butcher (Eds.),Handbook of research in clinical psychology. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gewirtz, H. B., & Gewirtz, J. L. (1969). Caretaking settings, background events and childrearing environments: Some preliminary trends. In B. M. Foss (Ed.),Determinants of infant behaviour, Vol. IV. London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, D. P., & Wood, D. D. (1982). Observational methods. In A. S. Bellack, M. Hersen, & A. E. Kazdin (Eds.),International handbook of behavior modification and therapy. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S. M., & Bolstad, O. D. (1973). Methodological issues in naturalistic observation: Some problems and solutions for field research. In L. A. Hamerlynck, L. C. Handy, & E. J. Mash (Eds.),Behavior change: Methodology, concepts, and practice. Champaign, IL: Research Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, J. M., & Pennypacker, H. S. (1980).Strategies and tactics of human behavior research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapust, J. A., & Nelson, R. O. (1984). Effects of the rate and spatial separation of target behaviors on observer accuracy and interobserver agreement.Behavioral Assessment, 6, 253–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kazdin, A. E. (1975).Behavior modification in applied settings. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kazdin, A. E. (1977). Artifact, bias, and complexity of assessment: The ABCs of reliability.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 141–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reid, J. B. (1982). Observer training in naturalistic research. In D. P. Hartmann (Ed.),Using observers to study behavior (pp. 37–50). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinrott, M. R., & Jones, R. R. (1984). Overt versus covert assessment of observer reliability.Child Development, 55, 1125–1137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wildman, B. G., Erickson, M. T., & Kent, R. N. (1975). The effect of two training procedures in observer agreement and variability of behavior ratings.Child Development, 46, 520–524.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yarrow, M. R., & Waxler, C. Z. (1979). Observing interaction: A confrontation with methodology. In R. B. Cairns (Ed.),The analysis of social interactions: Methods, issues, and illustrations (pp. 37–65). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum & Associates.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wolfe, V.V., Cone, J.D. & Wolfe, D.A. Social and solipsistic observer training: Effects on agreement with a criterion. J Psychopathol Behav Assess 8, 211–226 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00959833

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00959833

Key words

Navigation