Cited by 3,176Behavioral and Psychological StudiesPsychology Research and BibliometricsPublishing and Scholarly Communication

SOCIAL VALIDITY: THE CASE FOR SUBJECTIVE MEASUREMENT or HOW APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS IS FINDING ITS HEART 1

Open access
Wolf, Montrose M.·1978·Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis

Abstract

I apologize, but I must begin making my case for subjective measurement by recounting to you my own experiences with it over the past few years.Almost a decade ago, when the field of applied behavior analysis was beginning to expand so rapidly, we were faced with the task of putting together the Journal of Applied Be- havior Analysis.For a period of several months Garth Hopkins, who was our managing editor, presented us with a series of unexpected deci- sions to make; like: What color should the paper be?And did we need a paper that would hold together for two thousand years or were we willing to live with a shelf-life of only a thousand years?And so on.Just a couple of days before we were sched- uled to go to press with our very first issue, Garth called with one more question."What is the purpose of the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis?", he asked.He said we needed to put a description of the purpose on the inside front cover, as one finds in other journals.He needed an answer almost immediately.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1901/jaba.1978.11-203

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • With input from Autistic individuals, intervention goals, procedures, and outcomes are likely to be seen as more acceptable, useful, and effective.

    “With input from the most important stakeholders—Autistic individuals themselves—intervention goals, procedures, and outcomes are likely to be seen as more acceptable, useful, and effective (Wolf, 1978)”

    From Neurodiversity and Autism Intervention: Reconciling Perspectives Through a Naturalistic Developmental Behavioral Intervention Framework (2022) · cites this paper as Wolf, 1978

    In the social-validity discussion (page unavailable in our copy), Wolf argues for consumer input when judging intervention goals, the acceptability of procedures, and the importance of outcomes. The paper does not address Autistic individuals specifically or establish that obtaining their input makes interventions more acceptable, useful, or effective; it says acceptability may be related to effectiveness. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • If an intervention does not have high social validity, meaning it is not viewed as acceptable, useful, and feasible by deliverers and/or recipients, it is likely to fail.

    “if an intervention does not have high social validity, meaning that it is not viewed as acceptable, useful, and feasible by intervention deliverers (e.g., school staff) and/or recipients (e.g., pupils), then it is likely to fail [16, 17].”

    From Study protocol for the Multimodal Approach to Preventing Suicide in Schools (MAPSS) project: A regionally based feasibility trial of an integrated response to suicide risk among UK secondary school pupils (2024) · cites this paper as [17]

    The indexed passage labeled Abstract (page not provided) describes social validity in terms of whether participants and caregivers consider procedures acceptable, including their practicality. It says acceptability may be related to effectiveness and adoption, and that participants who dislike treatment may avoid it. The claim’s assertion that an intervention lacking high social validity is likely to fail is stronger than the paper’s qualified account. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Berleman, W. C., Seaberg, J. R., and Steinburn, T. W. The delinquency prevention experiment of the Seattle Atlantic Street Center: A final evaluation. Social Science Review, 1972, Sept., 323-346.
  2. Braukmann, C. J., Fixsen, D. L., Kirigin, K. A., Phil- lips, E. A. Phillips, E. L., and Wolf, M. M. Achievement Place: The training and certifica- tion of teaching-parents. In W. S. Wood (Ed), Issues in evaluating behavior modification. Cham- paign, Illinois: Research Press, 1975. Pp. 131- 152.
  3. Hasse, R. F. and Tepper, D. T. Nonverbal com- ponents of empathetic communication. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1972, 19, 417-424.
  4. Minkin, N., Braukmann, C. J., Minkin, B. L., Tim- bers, G. D., Timbers, B. J., Fixsen, D. L., Phillips, E. L., and Wolf, M. M. The social validation and training of conversation skills. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1976, 9, 127-140.
  5. O'Leary, K. D., Kent, R. N., and Kanowitz, J. Shap- ing data collection congruent with experimental hypotheses. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1975, 8, 43-51.
  6. Watson, John B. Behaviorism. Chicago: The Uni- versity of Chicago Press, 1930.
  7. Werner, J. S., Minkin, N., Minkin, B. L., Fixsen, D. L., Phillips, E. L., and Wolf, M. M. Interven- tion package: An analysis to prepare juvenile delinquents for encounters with police officers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1975, 2, 5 5-83.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wolf, M. M.
Affiliations
University of Kansas (US)
Corresponding author
Wolf, Montrose M.
Venue
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1978-06
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
203-214
ISSN
  • 0021-8855 (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-3703
OpenAlex
W2020279449
Cited by
3,176
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 135 · 2025: 130 · 2024: 130 · 2023: 165 · 2022: 147 · 2021: 149 · 2020: 114 · 2019: 123 · 2018: 94 · 2017: 94 · 2016: 82 · 2015: 95 · 2014: 93 · 2013: 77 · 2012: 80
FWCI
64.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
Keywords
social validity, subjective indicators, applied behavior analysis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review