Applied Behavior Science in Organizations

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ramona A. Houmanfar ◽  
Mitch Fryling ◽  
Mark P. Alavosius
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Madalina Sucala ◽  
Nnamdi Peter Ezeanochie ◽  
Heather Cole-Lewis ◽  
Jennifer Turgiss

Abstract The rapid expansion of technology promises to transform the behavior science field by revolutionizing the ways in which individuals can monitor and improve their health behaviors. To fully live into this promise, the behavior science field must address distinct challenges, including: building interventions that are not only scientifically sound but also engaging; using evaluation methods to precisely assess intervention components for intervention optimization; and building personalized interventions that acknowledge and adapt to the dynamic ecosystem of individual and contextual variables that impact behavior change. The purpose of this paper is to provide a framework to address these challenges by leveraging behavior science, human-centered design, and data science expertise throughout the cycle of developing and evaluating digital behavior change interventions (DBCIs). To define this framework, we reviewed current models and practices for intervention development and evaluation, as well as technology industry models for product development. The framework promotes an iterative process, aiming to maximize outcomes by incorporating faster and more frequent testing cycles into the lifecycle of a DBCI. Within the framework provided, we describe each phase, from development to evaluation, to discuss the optimal practices, necessary stakeholders, and proposed evaluation methods. The proposed framework may inform practices in both academia and industry, as well as highlight the need to offer collaborative platforms to ensure successful partnerships that can lead to more effective DBCIs that reach broad and diverse populations.


Perception ◽  
1997 ◽  
Vol 26 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. 223-223
Author(s):  
S V Kulikova

Adequate application of the Lea symbol and BUST visual acuity tests (Hyvarinen et al, 1980 Acta Ophthalmologica58 507; Lindstedt, 1986 British Journal of Visual Impairment4 49), designed for children over 18 months of developmental age, in young and/or handicapped pre-school children require preliminary assessment of their level of development. To assess the developmental demands more precisely, 162 children aged from 15 to 35 months and 54 older pre-schoolers, most with normal vision, were examined. Nearly half of the children showed some developmental delays in physical and mental capabilities as assessed on the CDI scale (Ireton, 1992, Child Developmental Inventory, Behavior Science System Inc). Nevertheless, in 77% far and/or near visual acuity was successfully measured by combinations of Lea symbol and/or BUST tests. The youngest successful children, 18 and 20 months of age, passed BUST-N and Lea-Domino. For children aged 18 – 24, 24 – 29, 30 – 35 months, and 36 months and above the success rates were, respectively, 39%, 75%, 89%, and 96%. The minimal values of the CDI scale indexes among the successful children may be regarded, in addition to chronological age, as minimal developmental demands, ie conditions necessary, although not always sufficient, for the child to pass visual acuity measurements. These values in months were 16 (‘social’), 18 (‘selfserving’), 14 (‘gross motor’), 16 (‘fine motor’), 16 (‘speech development’) and 19 (‘language comprehension’). The value of the last index was the most critical. Since the developmental demands are not very high, there are good prospects of using Lea symbol and BUST tests in young and/or handicapped children.


BioScience ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 69 (10) ◽  
pp. 778-788 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christine E Webb ◽  
Peter Woodford ◽  
Elise Huchard

Abstract Animal ethics—the field of philosophy concerned with the moral status of animals—is experiencing a momentum unprecedented in its history. Surprisingly, animal behavior science remains on the sidelines, despite producing critical evidence on which many arguments in animal ethics rest. In the present article, we explore the origins of the divide between animal behavior science and animal ethics before considering whether behavioral scientists should concern themselves with it. We finally envision tangible steps that could be taken to bridge the gap, encouraging scientists to be aware of, and to more actively engage with, an ethical revolution that is partly fueled by the evidence they generate.


2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Roxan G. Eupena

Teachers' interpersonal communication behavior in the classroom is known to be one of a vital element in creating a classroom learning environment that significantly contribute towards the students’ attitudes and motivation of learning. In view of this concept, the study was primarily conducted to investigate the impact of science teachers’ communication behavior towards the attitude of students in learning science. The study employs descriptive correlation research design and makes use of the Teacher Communication Behavior Questionnaire (TCBQ) of She and Fisher (2002), as well as the Test of Science Related Attitudes of Fraser (modified by She and Fisher in 2002). Results show no significant differences on gender; nevertheless, significant differences are apparent in two of the five scales of TCB namely non-verbal support and controlling in terms of age differences. Simple correlation coefficient indicates a significant correlation in four TCB scales namely: challenging, encouragement and praise, nonverbal support and controlling with the attitudinal scale, enjoyment in science lessons. Attitudinal scale career interest in science on the other hand, is correlated with encouragement and praise and non-verbal support. The above result indicates that communication behavior of science teachers has great contribution and impact towards the attitudes of students in learning science.   Keywords - teacher communication behavior, science related attitudes, learning


2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. W. Reese
Keyword(s):  

2014 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 277-287 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Williams ◽  
Daniel R. Evans

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document