|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
The Reliability of Observations of Young Children's EngagementAn Application of Generalizability Theory
R. A. McWILLIAM
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
WILLIAM B. WARE
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
The reliability of measurement of how young children spend their time has traditionally been computed in terms of interobserver exact agreement This study sought to apply generalizability theory to the measurement of engagement Forty-seven young children, 15 of whom had disabilities, were observed four times in their child care setting. Types and levels of engagement were coded by three raters. Using ANOVA procedures for determining the relative contribution of different sources of error, a fully crossed (with subjects) two-facet (sessions, raters) generalizability (G) study was employed. The nine outcome measures were four types and five levels of engagement Results showed that raters accounted for less than 2% of the variance in the error of the scores, while sessions accounted for most of the variance other than between subject variance. The outcome measures proved to vary in their reliability robustness. The G study was followed by a decision (D) study to determine the levels of the facets that would be required to achieve a generalizability coefficient of .80. The number of sessions could be realistically increased to achieve this aim, but the increase in "dependability" achieved with the addition of each rater was minimal. Conclusions are drawn about the importance of assessing more than one source of error, raters, in observational research Overall, molecular methods were determined to be relatively unstable for measuring the molar construct of engagement, but certain engagement outcomes were stable across sessions and raters.
Journal of Early Intervention, Vol. 18, No. 1,
34-47 (1994)
DOI: 10.1177/105381519401800104

CiteULike Complore Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
N. Watt, A. Wetherby, and S. Shumway
Prelinguistic Predictors of Language Outcome at 3 Years of Age
J Speech Lang Hear Res,
December 1, 2006;
49(6):
1224 - 1237.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
C. T. Bruckner, P. J. Yoder, and R.A. McWilliam
Generalizability and Decision Studies: An Example Using Conversational Language Samples
Journal of Early Intervention,
January 1, 2006;
28(2):
139 - 153.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
C. J. Dunst, M. B. Bruder, C. M. Trivette, D. Hamby, M. Raab, and M. McLean
Characteristics and Consequences of Everyday Natural Learning Opportunities
Topics in Early Childhood Special Education,
January 1, 2001;
21(2):
68 - 92.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
R. B. McCathren
Teacher-Implemented Prelinguistic Communication Intervention
Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities,
January 1, 2000;
15(1):
21 - 29.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
R. B. McCathren, P. J. Yoder, and S. F. Warren
Testing Predictive Validity of the Communication Composite of the Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales
Journal of Early Intervention,
January 1, 2000;
23(1):
36 - 46.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
P. M. Brown, M. D. Remine, S. J. Prescott, and F. W. Rickards
Social Interactions of Preschoolers With and Without Impaired Hearing in Integrated Kindergarten
Journal of Early Intervention,
January 1, 2000;
23(3):
200 - 211.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
R. B. McCATHREN, P. J. YODER, and S. F. WARREN
Prelinguistic Pragmatic Functions as Predictors of Later Expressive Vocabulary
Journal of Early Intervention,
January 1, 1999;
22(3):
205 - 216.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
P. J. YODER, S. F. WARREN, and L. HULL
Predicting Children's Response to Prelinguistic Communication Intervention
Journal of Early Intervention,
January 1, 1995;
19(1):
74 - 84.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
R. A. McWilliam and D. B. Bailey Jr.
Effects of Classroom Social Structure and Disability on Engagement
Topics in Early Childhood Special Education,
January 1, 1995;
15(2):
123 - 147.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
|
|