Accuracy of paper-and-pencil systematic observation versus computer-aided systems
Paper scoring stayed slightly more accurate than two computer apps for untrained observers.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Virues-Ortega et al. (2022) asked a simple question. Is paper-and-pencil still the gold standard for recording behavior?
They ran an alternating-treatments lab study with adult volunteers. Each person tried three ways to score the same video clips: paper sheet, computer program A, and computer program B.
What they found
All three tools scored high, but paper edged out both apps. The two computer systems landed in a dead heat.
Bottom line: going digital did not boost accuracy for new observers.
How this fits with other research
Chou et al. (2010) warned that feedback and pay can sway what observers write. Virues-Ortega kept these factors constant, so their high scores may hide the bias risk C et al. flagged.
Wirth et al. (2014) ran a computer simulation and showed interval methods always carry some error. Virues-Ortega’s live test backs this up: even the best tool was not perfect.
Yaw et al. (2014) found that staff doubled their accuracy after brief feedback. The new study did not give feedback, so it may under-rate what trainees can really do.
Why it matters
If you are hiring brand-new RBTs, paper sheets still work fine and cost almost nothing. Before you buy an app, test it against paper in your own setting. Add feedback loops like Jared et al. did; the tool alone will not fix errors.
Get CEUs on This Topic — Free
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ on-demand CEUs including ethics, supervision, and clinical topics like this one. Plus a new live CEU every Wednesday.
Run a five-minute side-by-side trial: have one trainee use paper and one use the app on the same client, then compare counts.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
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. The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.3758/s13428-022-01861-0.
Behavior Research Methods, 2022 · doi:10.3758/s13428-022-01861-0