The Performance Diagnostic Checklist-Human Services (1.1): An initial assessment of validity and reliability.

The Performance Diagnostic Checklist-Human Services (PDC-HS) is an assessment used to identify variables contributing to staff performance concerns in human-service settings. In the current study, we introduce and assess the test validity, interrater reliability, and test-retest reliability of the PDC-HS (1.1), a revised version of the assessment that included revised instructions, questions, and intervention planning references. We measured the psychometric properties of the revised assessment by analyzing answers obtained from watching video vignettes of simulated interviews between consultants and a supervisor. Twenty-one participants watched the vignettes and completed the PDC-HS (1.1) based on the answers provided during the interview. We also included an item analysis to identify questions on which participants made errors and an intervention selection task to assess whether participants selected an appropriate intervention to target the indicated domain. The results support the use of the PDC-HS (1.1) in human services settings.

A parametric analysis of procedural fidelity errors following mastery of a task: A translational study.

Procedural fidelity is defined as the extent to which the independent variable is implemented as prescribed. Research using computerized tasks has shown that fidelity errors involving consequences for behavior can hinder skill acquisition. However, studies examining the effects of these errors once skills have been mastered are lacking. Thus, this translational study investigated the effects of varying levels of fidelity following mastery of a computerized arbitrary matching-to-sample task. A group design (consisting of five groups) was used in which college students initially completed 250 trials during which no programmed errors (i.e., perfect fidelity) were arranged, followed by an additional 250 trials with consequences delivered across various levels of fidelity (i.e., 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100% of trials administered without errors). The results showed that participants assigned to higher fidelity conditions performed better (on average). These results extended the findings of previous studies by demonstrating how errors involving consequences affect behavior across various stages of learning.