ReviewJournal of applied behavior analysis2018
Behavioral treatment of automatically reinforced SIB: 1982 - 2015.
Review 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 12 papers, 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Competing stimulus assessments: A systematic review.Journal of applied behavior analysis · 2020Pooled it
- A longitudinal investigation of aggression and social skills in autistic youth.Research in autism · 2026Article
- A Caregiver Survey on Medical and Behavior Analytic Treatments for Idiopathic Toe Walking.Behavior analysis in practice · 2025Article
- Evaluation of a Treatment Package for Chronic, Stereotypic Hand Mouthing of a Child Diagnosed with Autism.Behavior analysis in practice · 2024Article
- Stimulus Avoidance Assessment: A Systematic Literature Review.Perspectives on behavior science · 2024Review
- Treatment of Self-Injury in Bainbridge-Ropers Syndrome: Replication and Extensions of Behavioral Assessments.Behavior analysis in practice · 2023Article
- Efficacy of competing stimulus assessments: A summary of 35 consecutively encountered cases.Journal of applied behavior analysis · 2023Article
- Jack Michael's Contributions to the Treatment of Autism.Behavior analysis in practice · 2022Article
- Analysis of unexpected disruptive effects of contingent food reinforcement on automatically maintained self-injury.Journal of applied behavior analysis · 2022Article
- Initial outcomes of an augmented competing stimulus assessment.Journal of applied behavior analysis · 2020Article
- Application of the evolutionary theory of behavior dynamics to severe challenging behavior.Journal of applied behavior analysisArticle
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Some individuals diagnosed with intellectual and developmental disabilities engage in automatically reinforced self-injurious behavior (SIB). For these individuals, identifying effective treatments may be difficult due to the nature of the reinforcement contingency. The purpose of this study was to review the literature on the treatment of automatically reinforced SIB to determine commonalities in procedures that produced effective and ineffective treatment outcomes, as well as historical trends in the treatment of this class of SIB. Results of this review indicated that there were many high-quality studies on this topic, but also a wide range in the quality of studies. As for effective treatments, noncontingent reinforcement (the most common treatment component) was found to be more effective when informed by a competing stimulus assessment rather than a preference assessment. Suggestions to improve the quality of the published record and areas in which additional research is needed are discussed.
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.