2012Behavioral InterventionsRequires access

DETECTING CHANGES IN NON‐SIMULATED EVENTS USING PARTIAL INTERVAL RECORDING AND MOMENTARY TIME SAMPLING: EVALUATING FALSE POSITIVES, FALSE NEGATIVES, AND TRENDING

Megan G. Schmidt, John T. Rapp, Marissa A. Novotny, Elizabeth A. Lood

Open publisher page 14 citations

Abstract

Several studies have evaluated false positives and false negatives produced with partial interval recording (PIR) and momentary time sampling (MTS) using simulated data. However, no study to date has evaluated false positives and negatives using a large sample of non‐simulated behaviors. In addition, few studies have evaluated whether interval methods of data collection alter trends that are evident in continuous records. We conducted three experiments to evaluate the extent to which various interval sizes of MTS and PIR produced false negatives (Experiment 1), false positives (Experiment 2), and trends that were inconsistent with the continuous records (Experiment 3). Collectively, the results show the following: (i) 10‐s PIR and 10‐s MTS produced few false negatives and few false positives (i.e., both were sensitive) to changes in duration events; (ii) 10‐s PIR produced very few false negatives, but an unexpected high percentage of false positives for frequency events; and (iii) each interval size of PIR and MTS produced a high percentage of changes in trending for duration events and frequency events. We briefly discuss the potential limitations and clinical implications of these findings. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Several studies have evaluated false positives and false negatives produced with partial interval recording (PIR) and momentary time sampling (MTS) using simulated data. However, no study to date has evaluated false positives and negatives using a large sample of non‐simulated behaviors. In addition, few studies have evaluated whether interval methods of data collection alter trends that are evident in continuous records. We conducted three experiments to evaluate the extent to which various interval sizes of MTS and PIR produced false negatives (Experiment 1), false positives (Experiment 2), and trends that were inconsistent with the continuous records (Experiment 3). Collectively, the results show the following: (i) 10‐s PIR and 10‐s MTS produced few false negatives and few false positives (i.e., both were sensitive) to changes in duration events; (ii) 10‐s PIR produced very few false negatives, but an unexpected high percentage of false positives for frequency events; and (iii) each interval size of PIR and MTS produced a high percentage of changes in trending for duration events and frequency events. We briefly discuss the potential limitations and clinical implications of these findings. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 14 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Several studies have evaluated false positives and false negatives produced with partial interval recording (PIR) and momentary time sampling (MTS) using simulated data. However, no study to date has evaluated false positives and negatives using a large sample of non‐simulated behaviors. In addition, few studies have evaluated whether interval methods of data collection alter trends that are evident in continuous records. We conducted three experiments to evaluate the extent to which various interval sizes of MTS and PIR produced false negatives (Experiment 1), false positives (Experiment 2), and trends that were inconsistent with the continuous records (Experiment 3). Collectively, the results show the following: (i) 10‐s PIR and 10‐s MTS produced few false negatives and few false positives (i.e., both were sensitive) to changes in duration events; (ii) 10‐s PIR produced very few false negatives, but an unexpected high percentage of false positives for frequency events; and (iii) each interval size of PIR and MTS produced a high percentage of changes in trending for duration events and frequency events. We briefly discuss the potential limitations and clinical implications of these findings. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Key concepts: False positive paradox, False positives and false negatives, True positive rate, Interval (graph theory), Statistics, Sampling (signal processing), Negative, Sampling interval

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
DETECTING CHANGES IN NON‐SIMULATED EVENTS USING PARTIAL INTERVAL RECORDING AND MOMENTARY TIME SAMPLING: EVALUATING FALSE POSITIVES, FALSE NEGATIVES, AND TRENDING — Research Paper | ScholarLens