Nicholas Matey

Standardized bedside rounds can improve communication and the quality of care for patients in hospitals. However, it can be challenging to change previously established provider practices to adhere to new procedures. This study evaluated 2 packaged interventions, derived from a modified Performance Diagnostic Checklist interview, to increase adherence to standardized rounding practices in 2 hospital units. Researchers observed physicians at a university hospital on rounds 2‐3 times per week, and 2 phases of intervention were implemented to improve adherence. The interventions included task clarification, feedback, and weekly huddles. Compared to baseline, phases 1 and 2 of the intervention improved clinician adherence to the standardized bedside rounding checklist by 24.94% and 30.94% in unit 1 and 26.76% and 44.06% in unit 2, respectively. The standardized rounds did not require additional time following the intervention. These results indicate that physician adherence can be improved through behavioral interventions.

The effectiveness of performance feedback depends on many factors, including accuracy and repeated delivery over time. Previous research has suggested that requiring the delivery of performance feedback may result in less accurate observations and feedback during subsequent observations. The current study evaluated whether different reactions (i.e., positive, neutral, or negative) to feedback would affect the accuracy of subsequent observations or the delivery of feedback. Forty‐five participants were assigned to 1 of 3 reactions groups and they were instructed to observe and record the safety performance of a confederate during a baseline condition. Following 2 baseline sessions, participants were instructed to deliver feedback and the confederate reacted to the feedback according to the assigned condition for 4 sessions. Results provide evidence that positive reactions maintain observation accuracy and the provision of feedback, while both neutral and negative reactions decrease observation accuracy and result in frequent omission of feedback.

Over the years, reviews in behavior analysis have sought to identify the most prolific researchers and institutions. The goal of these reviews was to offer one resource for behavior analysts to identify experts in behavior analysis and quality graduate programs. However, most of these reviews omitted the Journal of Organizational Behavior Management (JOBM), making the results less relevant to those who work in organizational behavior management. The purpose of this review was to extend previous findings and identify the most published researchers, academic institutions, and organizations in JOBM since its inception. Furthermore, we calculated the citation rate (per year, per article) for each of the top 20 most published authors. The results, implications, and opportunities for further analysis are discussed.

Feedback is often used in Organizational Behavior Management to improve employee performance. Accurate feedback results in greater improvements in performance and accurate observations enable accurate feedback. However, employees may find providing feedback to peers aversive. The present study contrived a method to evaluate whether instructing individuals to deliver feedback following observations impacted the accuracy of those observations. Five college-aged participants were exposed to a counterbalanced ABAB design. In the observation-only condition (Condition A) participants conducted observations of confederate posture, scoring whether the confederate’s feet and back were “safe” or “at risk.” In the required-feedback condition (Condition B) participants observed and collected data identically to phase A, but were additionally instructed to deliver feedback regarding confederate postures following each session. The results show that all five participants demonstrated higher accuracy of observations in the observation-only condition. Factors potentially influencing lower accuracy when feedback was required are discussed.

A number of articles have examined the participation of women in behavior analysis research. However, most have excluded JOBM from the analysis. For this review, we coded participation of women yearly, since the inception of the journal. We examined participation of women overall, as first authors, as sole authors, and in empirical articles. We also assessed collaborations between genders and identified the ten most published women in JOBM. Next, we examined the current editorial board and associate editors to provide updated information on the participation of women in those roles. Overall, we found an increasing trend of participation of women over the years with participation approaching parity in most categories in the most recent years. Finally, we discussed these results and suggested greater attention be paid to increasing participation of other underrepresented groups.

Performance scorecards are tools that measure staff performance across multiple criteria to produce a single, overall performance score, which can be used as feedback for employees. While scorecards are considered a low-cost and effective approach to improve performance, published research demonstrating the effectiveness of scorecards is limited. The current study attempted to first demonstrate the effectiveness of scorecard feedback to improve performance, then, evaluate the added effects of linking the scorecard feedback to a lottery. Current results suggest scorecard feedback can modestly improve average employee performance, and linking the scorecard to a lottery may result in further performance improvements.