ArticleJournal of applied behavior analysis2014
Distributed and accumulated reinforcement arrangements: evaluations of efficacy and preference.
Article in Journal of applied behavior analysis, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 69 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Behavioral Economic Measure of Sensitivity to Social Rewards in Children with and without Autism Spectrum Disorder.Research in autism · 2025Article
- Increasing Vocabulary and Listening Comprehension During Adapted Shared Reading: An Intervention for Preschoolers with Autism Spectrum Disorder.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2024Article
- On the Identification and Use of Social versus Nonsocial Reinforcers: A Review of Research Practices.Perspectives on behavior science · 2024Review
- Common Practices used to Establish and Implement Token Economies in Clinical and Instructional Settings: A Survey of BACB Certificants.Behavior analysis in practice · 2023Article
- Assessing Parameters of Reinforcement on Efficiency of Acquisition: A Systematic Review.Behavior analysis in practice · 2023Review
- A Rapid Assessment of Sensitivity to Reward Delays and Classwide Token Economy Savings for School-Aged Children.Journal of behavioral education · 2022Article
- Analysis of unexpected disruptive effects of contingent food reinforcement on automatically maintained self-injury.Journal of applied behavior analysis · 2022Article
- Adapting Direct Services for Telehealth: A Practical Tutorial.Behavior analysis in practice · 2021Article
- Big Surprises: Jackpot Reinforcers in Research and Practice.Behavior analysis in practice · 2020Review
- An evaluation of lag schedules and prompting methods to increase variability of naming category items in children with autism spectrum disorder.The Analysis of verbal behavior · 2018Article
- Examining the reinforcing value of stimuli within social and non-social contexts in children with and without high-functioning autism.Autism : the international journal of research and practice · 2017Article
- The Impact of Stimulus Presentation and Size on Preference.Behavior analysis in practice · 2017Article
- Effects of Reinforcer Magnitude and Quality on Preference for Response-Reinforcer Arrangements in Young Children with Autism.Behavior analysis in practice · 2017Article
- A quantitative review of overjustification effects in persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities.Journal of applied behavior analysis · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
We assessed the efficacy of, and preference for, accumulated access to reinforcers, which allows uninterrupted engagement with the reinforcers but imposes an inherent delay required to first complete the task. Experiment 1 compared rates of task completion in 4 individuals who had been diagnosed with intellectual disabilities when reinforcement was distributed (i.e., 30-s access to the reinforcer delivered immediately after each response) and accumulated (i.e., 5-min access to the reinforcer after completion of multiple consecutive responses). Accumulated reinforcement produced response rates that equaled or exceeded rates during distributed reinforcement for 3 participants. Experiment 2 used a concurrent-chains schedule to examine preferences for each arrangement. All participants preferred delayed, accumulated access when the reinforcer was an activity. Three participants also preferred accumulated access to edible reinforcers. The collective results suggest that, despite the inherent delay, accumulated reinforcement is just as effective and is often preferred by learners over distributed reinforcement.
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.