TABLE 3.
Interobserver agreement and procedural fidelity across participants for the structured descriptive assessment, functional analysis, and functional communication training
| n | % | M (%) | Range (%) | SD | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Interobserver agreement | |||||
|
| |||||
| SDA | 54 | 94.7 | |||
| Sessions with IOA | 58.1 | 29–100 | 24.1 | ||
| IOA | 95.9 | 79–100 | 6.28 | ||
| FA | 25 | 96.2 | |||
| Sessions with IOA | 46.6 | 27–100 | 22.9 | ||
| IOA | 93.8 | 75–100 | 6.7 | ||
| FCT | 54 | 94.7 | |||
| Sessions with IOA | 44.5 | 17–100 | 24.7 | ||
| IOA | 95 | 75–100 | 6.5 | ||
|
| |||||
| Procedural fidelity | |||||
|
| |||||
| SDA | 36 | 63.2 | |||
| Sessions with fidelity | 45.7 | 21–100 | 20.8 | ||
| Fidelity | 96.7 | 80–100 | 6.5 | ||
| FA | 36 | 63.2 | |||
| Sessions with fidelity | 39.9 | 20–100 | 23.4 | ||
| Fidelity | 92.1 | 70–100 | 8.1 | ||
| FCT | 36 | 63.2 | |||
| Sessions with fidelity | 29.3 | 20–63 | 9.7 | ||
| Fidelity | 96.4 | 70–100 | 6.6 | ||
Note. Mean, range, and SD are representative of the total number of participants for which data were available for each condition. For IOA, that was 54, 25, and 54 participants for the SDA, FA, and FCT conditions, respectively. For procedural fidelity, that was 36 participants for all conditions. The percentage of participants for whom we collected interobserver agreement and procedural-fidelity data are out of the 57 total participants. We calculated total-count IOA. SDA = structured descriptive assessment; FA = functional analysis; FCT = functional communication training; IOA = interobserver agreement.