ArticleJournal of applied behavior analysis2018
Does preference rank predict substitution for the reinforcer for problem behavior? a behavioral economic analysis.
Article in Journal of applied behavior analysis, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Application of operant demand in autism and developmental disabilities: An updated review (2017-2025).Journal of applied behavior analysisPooled it
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
Abstract
Predictions made under low response requirements inherent in most preference assessments (PAs) do not guarantee the utility of stimuli in treatments. We examined whether PA rank would predict how well stimuli supported compliance for children with escape-maintained problem behavior by examining the relation between PA rank and demand elasticity across five fixed-ratio values. Three patterns were observed: All stimuli were selected equally across values, higher ranked stimuli were selected more at higher values, and something other than the highest ranked stimulus was selected more at higher values (i.e., mixed correspondence).
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.