Improving behaviour classification consistency: a technique from biological taxonomy

Nieminen, Timo A. and Choi, Serene Hyun-Jin and Bahr, Mark and Bahr, Nan (2002) Improving behaviour classification consistency: a technique from biological taxonomy. [Conference Paper]

Full text available as:



Quantitative behaviour analysis requires the classification of behaviour to produce the basic data. In practice, much of this work will be performed by multiple observers, and maximising inter-observer consistency is of particular importance. Another discipline where consistency in classification is vital is biological taxonomy. A classification tool of great utility, the binary key, is designed to simplify the classification decision process and ensure consistent identification of proper categories. We show how this same decision-making tool - the binary key - can be used to promote consistency in the classification of behaviour. The construction of a binary key also ensures that the categories in which behaviour is classified are complete and non-overlapping. We discuss the general principles of design of binary keys, and illustrate their construction and use with a practical example from education research.

Item Type:Conference Paper
Keywords:classification; behaviour analysis; binary keys
Subjects:Psychology > Behavioral Analysis
ID Code:3963
Deposited By: Nieminen, Dr Timo A.
Deposited On:29 Nov 2004
Last Modified:11 Mar 2011 08:55

References in Article

Select the SEEK icon to attempt to find the referenced article. If it does not appear to be in cogprints you will be forwarded to the paracite service. Poorly formated references will probably not work.

Barlow, D. H. and Hersen, M. (1984). Single case experimental designs: strategies for studying behavior change, 2nd ed., Pergamon Press, New York.

Bekoff, M. (1977). Three areas of classical ethology. pp 1-46 in Hazlett, B. A. (ed), Quantitative methods in the study of animal behaviour, Academic Press, New York.

Dallwitz, M. J. (1974). A flexible computer program for generating identification keys. Syst. Zool., 23, 50-57.

Gay, L. R. (1996). Educational research: competencies for analysis and application, 5th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Gittleman, J. L. and Decker, D. M. (1994). The phylogeny of behaviour. pp 80-105 in Slater, P. J. B. and Halliday, T. R. (eds), Behaviour and Evolution, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Herbert, J. and Attridge, C. (1975). A guide for developers and users of observation systems and manuals. American Educational Research Journal, 12, 1-20.

Meltzoff, J. (1998). Critical thinking about research: psychology and related fields, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

Metcalf, Z. P. (1954). The construction of keys. Syst. Zool., 3, 38-45.

Mitchell, M. and Jolley, J. (2001). Research design explained, 4th ed., Harcourt, Fort Worth, TX.

Osborne, D. V. (1963a). A numerical representation for taxonomic keys. New Phytologist, 62, 35-43.

Osborne, D. V. (1963b). Some aspects of the theory of dichotomous keys. New Phytologist, 62, 144-160.

Payne, R. W. and Preece, D. A. (1980). Identification keys and diagnostic tables: a review. J. R. Statist. Soc. A, 143, 253-292.

Slater, P. J. B. (1978). Data collection. pp 7-24 in Colgan, P. W. (ed), Quantitative Ethology, John Wiley, New York.

Whitley, B. E., Jr. (2002). Principles of research in behavioral science, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, Boston.


Repository Staff Only: item control page