COMPARING CHOICE AND QUESTIONNAIRE MEASURES OF THE ACCEPTABILITY OF A STAFF TRAINING PROCEDURE
Open accessAbstract
We compared questionnaire and choice measures of acceptability while evaluating effects of staff familiarity versus unfamiliarity with the system used to monitor performance during a training program. Staff members rated both monitoring formats equally favorably on the questionnaire, whereas when given a choice, they frequently chose the familiar format and never chose the unfamiliar format. These results suggest that traditional questionnaire evaluations may not be sufficiently sensitive measures of acceptability relative to choice measures.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 1 · Cited by 26
- Authors
- Reid, D. H., & Parsons, M. B.
- Affiliations
- J. Iverson Riddle Developmental Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- Reid, Dennis H.
- ORCID
- Reid, Dennis H.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1995-03
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 95-96
- ISSN
- 0021-8855 (ISSN-L)
- 1938-3703
- PMC
- PMC1279795
- OpenAlex
- W1993780294
- Semantic Scholar
- d51fc7b35f6c30958c7469b8892b025f57d3660e
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 4.10
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Human Resource Development and Performance Evaluation
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
- Keywords
- acceptability, employee training, performance monitoring, questionnaire evaluation, training evaluation, measurement sensitivity
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
