Assessing the social validity of behavioral interventions: A review of treatment acceptability measures

By Cindy A. Finn, Ingrid E. Sladeczek. 2001

181 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Cognitive Neuroscience, Developmental and Educational Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/10e78a4224807e62f7d8190cebf8351c49db131f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

1. Don Stenhoff
2. J. Gibson
3. J. Hopper
4. Robert Pennington

In Cognitive Neuroscience

1. Don Stenhoff
2. J. Gibson
3. J. Hopper
4. Robert Pennington

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

1. Don Stenhoff
2. J. Gibson
3. J. Hopper
4. Robert Pennington

Citations in the corpus

• Review of Recent Treatment Acceptability Research (2007, unknown): “Finn and Sladeczek (2001) critiqued nine treatment acceptability measures which were the: (a) TEI, (b) TEI-SF, (c) TARF, (d) TARF-R, (e) IRP, (f) IRP for teachers, (g) AARP, (h) CIRP, and (i) BIRS.”
• A randomized controlled trial of interleaved mathematics practice. (2019, unknown): “We also asked teachers to anonymously report their beliefs about inter-leaved practice because interventions sometimes fail without lik-ability and teacher buy-in (e.g., Finn & Sladeczek, 2001).”
• Using Desktop Videoconferencing to Deliver Interventions to a Preschool Student With Autism (2010, methodology): “The BIRS has been used to document social validity outcomes in a number of consultation studies (e.g., Cowan & Sheridan, 2003; Finn & Sladeczek, 2001; Sheridan, 1992).”