Practitioners in pediatric feeding programs often rely on single-case experimental designs and visual inspection to make treatment decisions (e.g., whether to change or keep a treatment in place). However, researchers have shown that this practice remains subjective, and there is no consensus yet on the best approach to support visual inspection results. To address this issue, we present the first application of a pediatric feeding treatment evaluation using machine learning to analyze treatment effects. A 5-year-old male with autism spectrum disorder participated in a 2-week home-based, behavior-analytic treatment program. We compared interrater agreement between machine learning and expert visual analysts on the effects of a pediatric feeding treatment within a modified reversal design. Both the visual analyst and the machine learning model generally agreed about the effectiveness of the treatment while overall agreement remained high. Overall, the results suggest that machine learning may provide additional support for the analysis of single-case experimental designs implemented in pediatric feeding treatment evaluations.
BorreroC. S. W.SchlerethG. J.RubioE. K.TaylorT. (2013). A comparison of two physical guidance procedures in the treatment of pediatric food refusal. Behavioral Interventions, 28(4), 261–280. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1373
2.
BullockC. E.FisherW. W.HagopianL. P. (2017). Description and validation of a computerized behavioral data program: “BDataPro”. The Behavior Analyst, 40(1), 275–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-016-0079-0
3.
DeProsperoA.CohenS. (1979). Inconsistent visual analyses of intrasubject data. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12(4), 573–579. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1979.12-573
4.
FisherW. W.KelleyM. E.LomasJ. E. (2003). Visual aids and structured criteria for improving visual inspection and interpretation of single-case designs. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36(3), 387–406. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2003.36-387
5.
FisherW. W.PiazzaC. C.BowmanL. G.HagopianL. P.OwensJ. C.SlevinI. (1992). A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25(2), 491–498. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1992.25-491
6.
FordA. L.RudolphB. N.PenningtonB.ByiersB. J. (2020). An exploration of the interrater agreement of visual analysis with and without context. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 53(1), 572–583. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.560
7.
GulottaC. S.PiazzaC. C.PatelM. R.LayerS. A. (2005). Using food redistribution to reduce packing in children with severe food refusal. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2005.168-03
8.
HagopianL. P.FisherW. W.ThompsonR. H.Owen-DeSchryverJ.IwataB. A.WackerD. P. (1997). Toward the development of structured criteria for interpretation of functional analysis data. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30(2), 313–326. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1997.30-313
KahngS. W.ChungK. M.GutshallK.PittsS. C.KaoJ.GirolamiK. (2010). Consistent visual analyses of intrasubject data. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43(1), 35–45. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2010.43-35
11.
KerwinM. L. E.AhearnW. H.EicherP. S.BurdD. M. (1995). The costs of eating: A behavioral economic analysis of food refusal. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28(3), 245–260. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1995.28-245
12.
KorkmazC.CorreiaA.-P. (2019). A review of research on machine learning in educational technology. Educational Media International, 56(3), 250–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2019.1669875
13.
KratochwillT. R.HitchcockJ. HHornerR. H.LevinJ. R.OdomS. L.RindskopfD. M.ShadishW. R. (2010). Single-case designs technical documentation. What Works Clearinghouse. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED510743.pdf
14.
KratochwillT. R.HitchcockJ. H.HornerR. H.LevinJ. R.OdomS. L.RindskopfD. M.ShadishW. R. (2013). Single-case intervention research design standards. Remedial and Special Education, 34(1), 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932512452794
15.
KunkelK. R.KozlowskiA. M.TaylorT.GonzálezM. L. (2018). Validating a food avoidance assessment for children with food selectivity. Behavioral Development, 23(2), 89–105. https://doi.org/10.1037/bdb0000078
16.
LaneJ. D.GastD. L. (2014). Visual analysis in single case experimental design studies: Brief review and guidelines. Neuropsychological rehabilitation, 24(3–4), 445–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2013.815636
17.
LanovazM. J.GiannakakosA. R.DestrasO. (2020). Machine learning to analyze single-case data: A proof of concept. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 43, 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-020-00244-0
18.
ManolovR.MoeyaertM. (2017). Recommendations for choosing single-case data analytical techniques. Behavior Therapy, 48(1), 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2016.04.008
19.
ManolovR.VannestK. J. (2019). A visual aid and objective rule encompassing the data features of visual analysis. Behavior Modification. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0145445519854323
20.
MartensB. K.WittJ. C.ElliottS. N.DarveauxD. X. (1985). Teacher judgments concerning the acceptability of school-based interventions. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 16(2), 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.16.2.191
21.
NinciJ.VannestK. J.WillsonV.ZhangN. (2015). Interrater agreement between visual analysts of single-case data: A meta-analysis. Behavior Modification, 39(4), 510–541. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0145445515581327
22.
RajkomarA.DeanJ.KohaneI. (2019). Machine learning in medicine. New England Journal of Medicine, 380(14), 1347–1358. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1814259
23.
RubioE. K.BorreroC. S. W.TaylorT. (2015). Use of a side deposit to increase consumption in children with food refusal. Behavioral Interventions, 30(3), 231–246. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1404
24.
SevinB. M.GulottaC. S.SierpB. J.RosicaL. A.MillerL. J. (2002). Analysis of response covariation among multiple topographies of food refusal. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35(1), 65–68. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2002.35-65
25.
TaylorT. (2018). Intensive paediatric feeding treatment and the use of a side deposit for a clinical case within the home setting in Australia. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 19(2), 208–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2018.1472852
26.
TaylorT. (2020). Side deposit with regular texture food for clinical cases in-home. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 45(4), 399–410. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsaa004
TaylorT.BlampiedN.RoglićN. (2020). Consecutive controlled case series demonstrates how parents can be trained to treat paediatric feeding disorders at home. Acta Paediatrica, 110(1), 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.15372
29.
VolkertV. M.PetersonK. M.ZelenyJ. R.PiazzaC. C. (2014). A clinical protocol to increase chewing and assess mastication in children with feeding disorders. Behavior Modification, 38(5), 705–729. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445514536575
30.
WolfeK.SeamanM. A.DrasgowE. (2016). Interrater agreement on the visual analysis of individual tiers and functional relations in multiple baseline designs. Behavior Modification, 40(6), 852–873. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445516644699
31.
WolfeK.SeamanM. A.DrasgowE.SherlockP. (2018). An evaluation of the agreement between the conservative dual-criterion method and expert visual analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 51(2), 345–351. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.453
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
