Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Although a demand analysis is helpful for identifying potential establishing operations for the functional analysis (FA) demand condition, it may not always be practical due to time constraints. A potential alternative is the Negative Reinforcement Rating Scale (NRRS), an indirect assessment tool that may serve as a time efficient alternative to a demand analysis. The experimenter assessed the reliability and validity of the NRRS for 5 individuals with autism spectrum disorder who exhibited problem behavior. Multiple types of interrater reliability were assessed across 2 informants, and NRRS outcomes were compared to a subsequent demand analysis and FA to assess its validity. Reliability was high (M = 84%) for NRRS numerical ratings of categories but low (M = 32.9%) for specific examples provided. NRRS-identified highly aversive tasks yielded better correspondence with demand analysis outcomes than did NRRS-identified less aversive tasks.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jaba.656 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!