ArticleJournal of applied behavior analysis2011
Response competition and stimulus preference in the treatment of automatically reinforced behavior: a comparison.
Article in Journal of applied behavior analysis, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy of competing stimulus assessments: A summary of 35 consecutively encountered cases.Journal of applied behavior analysis · 2023Article
- Applied Behavior Analysis in Children and Youth with Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Scoping Review.Perspectives on behavior science · 2022Article
- Initial outcomes of an augmented competing stimulus assessment.Journal of applied behavior analysis · 2020Article
- Behavioral treatment of automatically reinforced SIB: 1982 - 2015.Journal of applied behavior analysis · 2018Review
- A replication and extension of the augmented competing stimulus assessment.Journal of applied behavior analysisArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinicians are particularly challenged by the development of interventions for behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement because reinforcers that maintain the responses often cannot be directly observed or manipulated. Researchers have conducted either preference assessments or competing items assessments when developing effective treatments for behavior maintained by automatic reinforcement. However, interventions based on these assessments have not been directly compared. The current study evaluated procedures to make such a comparison. High-competition items resulted in greater reductions in vocal stereotypy than did high-preference items for a preschool boy with autism.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.