No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

When measuring social validity, many researchers rely exclusively on subjective measures, such as questionnaires or surveys; however, these measures may fail to capture the variables that control later intervention adoption by stakeholders, and objective measures may capture these variables more accurately. Moreover, few researchers have investigated the adoptability of differential reinforcement (DR) interventions to increase children’s honesty about transgressions. We taught caregivers to implement the DR procedures reported in Lehardy et al. (2023) and measured the acceptability and adoptability of procedures using three measures: (1) a social validity questionnaire and rating scale immediately following training, (2) a concurrent-chains preference assessment with the researcher, and (3) an at-home follow-up questionnaire approximately one week after training. Caregiver preferences for procedures varied, but all caregivers reported preferring DR procedures to increase honesty over an NCR procedure. Correspondence between each participant’s three social validity outcomes also varied, but only fully aligned for one participant. Our findings indicate a need for additional research into correspondence between subjective and objective social validity measures to determine whether subjective measures can accurately predict later intervention adoption.

Excessive alcohol consumption is a widespread concern among many college campuses. Most of the data on the prevalence and adverse consequences associated with college drinking are gathered from self-report surveys, which require respondents to have a knowledge of standard drink sizes. Unfortunately, the reliability and validity of these data are questionable because college students are typically unable to define or pour standard drinks. Efforts to improve college students’ self-reported alcohol consumption are warranted. Some researchers suggest that we can improve self-reports of alcohol consumption by providing college students with feedback on the accuracy of their standard drink free-pours (White et al., 2005). However, the evidence supporting the use of feedback to improve the validity of self-report is limited by aggregate data, lack of repeated measures, evaluation of only one type of beer, and no evaluation of the effects of feedback on observable behavior (e.g., free-pour). The current study replicated White et al. (2005) using a single-case design and repeated measures to examine the effects of feedback on college students’ self-report as well as their free-pours. Results showed feedback improved the accuracy of college students’ free-pours of standard servings of beer containing 5% alcohol by volume (ABV); however, this skill did not generalize to pouring standard servings of a higher ABV (8%) beer. Unlike White et al. (2005), the feedback had little effect on college students’ self-reported alcohol consumption. Future researchers should use a similar single-case design to evaluate if feedback on various types of alcohol (such as beer, wine, and liquor) systematically affects college students’ self-reports. If so, this feedback could potentially be used as a method to improve the reliability or validity of college students’ self-reported alcohol consumption, and potentially lead to more accurate evaluations of alcohol reduction interventions.