situation by subtly changing its whole character. Fur-
thermore, in free-flowing, spontaneous situations,
the client may move away so that conversations can-
not be overheard or the entire scene may move
down the hall too quickly to be followed. In short,
naturalistic settings often put clinicians at the mercy
of events that can sometimes overwhelm opportu-
nities for careful, objective assessment. As a way of
handling these problems, clinicians sometimes use
controlled observation.
Controlled observation is sometimes referred to
asanalogue behavioral observation(Haynes, 2001). Such
observation can occur in a clinic setting or in the
natural environment. The important feature is that
the environment is“designed”such that it is likely
that the assessor will observe the targeted behavior or
interactions—for example, asking couples to discuss
relationship problems in the laboratory to observe
couple interaction patterns (Heyman, 2001).
For many years, researchers have used tech-
niques to elicit controlled samples of behavior.
These are reallysituational teststhat put individuals
in situations more or less similar to those of real life.
Direct observations are then made of how the indi-
viduals react. In a sense, this is a kind of work-
sample approach in which the behavioral test situa-
tion and the criterion behavior to be predicted are
quite similar. This should reduce errors in predic-
tion, as contrasted, for example, to psychological
tests whose stimuli are far removed from the pre-
dictive situations.
Parent–Adolescent Conflict. To more accurately
assess the nature and degree of parent–adolescent
conflict, Prinz and Kent (1978) developed theInter-
action Behavior Code(IBC) system. Using the IBC,
several raters review and rate audiotaped discussions
of families attempting to resolve a problem about
which they disagree. Items are rated separately for
each family member according to the behavior’s
presence or absence during the discussion (or for
some items, the degree to which they are present).
Summary scores are calculated by averaging scores
(across raters) for negative behaviors and positive
behaviors. Recently, a group of investigators was
interested in reducing family conflict within families
that included a child diagnosed with diabetes
(Wysocki et al., 1999). These researchers offered
behavioral family systems therapy to 119 families
and used the IBC to measure conflict before and
after the treatment. Results suggested promising
effects for this form of therapy for reducing family
conflict, and IBC offered a less-biased outcome mea-
sure than either child or parent reports of conflict
(Wysocki et al., 1999). Table 9-3 presents a sample
of the codes and definitions from the IBC.Controlled Performance Techniques
Contrived situations allow one to observe behavior
under conditions that offer potential for control and
standardization. A, perhaps, exotic example is the
case in which A. A. Lazarus (1961) assessed claus-
trophobic behavior by placing a patient in a closed
room that was made progressively smaller by mov-
ing a screen. Similarly, Bandura (1969) has used
films to expose people to a graduated series of
anxiety-provoking stimuli.
A series of assessment procedures usingcontrolled
performance techniquesto study chronic snake phobiasT A B L E 9-3 Sample Codes and Definitions
from the Interaction Behavior
Code (IBC)
Negative Behavior- Yelling—raising the volume of one’s voice in an angry
manner. - Name-calling—applying a name to the other person
that connotes something negative. Must be a noun. - Mind-reading—stating or attributing beliefs to the
other person.
Positive Behavior
1.Making suggestions—offering solutions and possible
ideas (without demanding) of things that can be done
differently in the future.
2.Asking what the other would like—attempting to
find out what the other person wants, expects, or
prefers.
3.Compromise—modifying original intentions or
preferences, willingness to do so.
NOTE: Each code is rated according to whether it occurred during the time
frame of interest.
SOURCE: Reprinted with permission of author, Dr. Ronald Prinz.
BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT 265