Evaluation of the accuracy, reliability, efficiency, and acceptability of fast forwarding to score problem behavior

Machado et al. (2019) tested whether you can speed-watch long videos to score problem behavior. They compared three ways to code the same clips: normal speed, 3.5× fast-forward, and momentary time sampling. Trained observers watched low-rate problem behavior and rated accuracy, reliability, and how much they liked each method.

Fast-forward at 3.5× speed gave the same accuracy and reliability as normal speed. It also cut scoring time by about 70%. Observers said the fast-forward method was easy and acceptable to use. Momentary time sampling was faster still, but it missed some behaviors and produced lower reliability.

Machado et al. (2021) extended the same idea even further. They pushed playback to 5× speed and added a short computer training module. Observers kept error under 11% and saved two-thirds of their time, showing you can go faster if you train first.

Peters et al. (2013) took a different shortcut: they used a 5-minute alone probe instead of a full functional analysis. Both papers aim to shorten assessment, one by trimming video review and the other by trimming the assessment itself.

Shabani et al. (2006) showed 10-minute time samples work for tics. Machado’s team shows you can keep the whole video and just play it faster. Both methods give reliable data without watching every second.

If you score classroom or home videos for problem behavior, set your player to 3.5× speed. You will finish in less than half the time and still hit the same reliability numbers. Pair the speed with a quick computer tutorial if you want to push to 5×. Either way, you free up hours for treatment instead of paperwork.