9 Matching Annotations
  1. Feb 2019
  2. Dec 2018
    1. At pre-test, the control group showed relatively high scores on all quality measures. The mean score for function-based was 0.84, evidence-based was 0.84, and non-punishment-based was 0.96. The treatment group showed slightlylower pre-test scores in the areas of function-based (mean = 0.78) and evidence-based (mean = 0.78) and similar scoreson non-punishment-based (mean = 0.96)

      ceiling effect for control group

    2. Noguidance was given to the participants regarding what topography or function of behavior to choose, nor which client tochoose. The BIPs that were submitted included a wide range of behavior topographies and functions, as depicted inTables 2 and 3. The ages of the clients ranged significantly, but were roughly equivalent across the two groups, witha mean age of 8.75 years (range = 3–19) in the treatment group and a mean age of 7.75 years (range = 4–10) in thecontrol group. It seems reasonable that due to reactivity, participants would choose to send a BIP that they believedwas good-quality, however, this reactivity was likely to be equally distributed across groups. Each BIP was then scoredas the pre-test data for that participant. For participants in the control group, the participant was then asked to updatetheir BIP however they see fit over the next 24 h and resubmit it. For participants in the BIP builder group, they wereasked to update their BIP using the BIP builder within the next 24 h. No further instructions were given to theparticipants.
    1. Thus, we definedgaze velocity averaged over the simulated exercise, usingthe harmonic mean, as:vg¼NfsPN1n¼11rgðnÞrgðn1Þwherefsis the sampling rate of the recording device (in thiscase, 30 Hz),Nis the number of samples recorded duringthe simulated exercise, andrg(n)is the(x,y)position of thegaze (in units of degrees of visual angle) on the samplen.Gaze velocity provides information about how fast the gazeis continuously moving through the exercises, indepen-dently of the spatial configuration of its elements.
  3. Oct 2018
    1. Also more complexity and prefering inheritance over composition raises development and debugging time because "My car has a radio" is a better abstraction and though easier to handle then "My car is also a radio". And cleaner, generic solutions are easier to opitimize than complex specialized, what would then again lead to more speed. In my oppinion at least.
  4. Feb 2017
    1. private void setup(string someData) { Object.assignHandler((sender) => evHandler(sender,someData)); } public void evHandler(Object sender, string someData) { // need someData here!!! }

      lambda is useful

  5. Oct 2016