ArticleJournal of applied behavior analysis2011
An assessment of the efficiency of and child preference for forward and backward chaining.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Examination of Ethical Decision-Making Models Across Disciplines: Common Elements and Application to the Field of Behavior Analysis.Behavior analysis in practice · 2023Review
- Evaluation of Caregiver Training Procedures to Teach Activities of Daily Living Skills.Behavior analysis in practice · 2021Article
- How can Cattle be Toilet Trained? Incorporating Reflexive Behaviours into a Behavioural Chain.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020Article
- School's Out for COVID-19: 50 Ways BCBA Trainees in Special Education Settings Can Accrue Independent Fieldwork Experience Hours During the Pandemic.Behavior analysis in practice · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Comparative studies of forward and backward chaining have led some to suggest that sensitivity to each teaching procedure may be idiosyncratic across learners and tasks. The purposes of the current study were threefold. First, we assessed differential sensitivity to each chaining procedure within children when presented with multiple learning tasks of similar content but different complexity. Second, we evaluated whether differential sensitivity to a chaining procedure during a brief task predicted differential sensitivity during the teaching of longer tasks. Third, we directly assessed children's preferences for each teaching procedure via a concurrent-chains preference assessment. Learners acquired all target skills introduced under both chaining conditions, but individual children did not consistently learn more efficiently with either procedure. Short-duration tasks were not predictive of performance in tasks of longer duration. Both chaining procedures were preferred over a baseline condition without prompting, but participants did not demonstrate a preference for either procedure.
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.