Abstract
Based on a reanalysis of 881 studies in applied behavior analysis, Huitema (1985 Behavioral Assessment7, 107-118) concluded that behavioral data are not autocorrelated. This conclusion was challenged by Suen (in press Behavioral Assessment) from a number of methodological perspectives. One of the most essential criticisms was the inherent high probability of Type II error in Huitema's conclusion. In this paper, the common power analysis method is modified and is suggested as a means to assess the appropriateness of a "no autocorrelation" conclusion.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 125-130 |
| Number of pages | 6 |
| Journal | Behavioral Assessment |
| Volume | 9 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| State | Published - Mar 1 1987 |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Psychiatry and Mental health
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Autocorrelation in applied behavior analysis: Myth or reality?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver