ArticleBehavior analysis in practice2018
Evaluating Three Methods of Stimulus Rotation when Teaching Receptive Labels.
Article in Behavior analysis in practice, 2018. 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.
- Case report: Receptive labeling training in autism: conventional vs. technology-based approaches? a single case study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
- Toward Efficiency and Effectiveness: Comparing Equivalence-based Instruction to Progressive Discrete Trial Teaching.Behavior analysis in practice · 2022Article
- Comparing In-View to Out-of-View Stimulus Arrangements When Teaching Receptive Labels for Children Diagnosed With Autism Spectrum Disorder.Behavior analysis in practice · 2022Article
- Advances in Our Understanding of Behavioral Intervention: 1980 to 2020 for Individuals Diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2021Review
- A Preliminary Evaluation of a Token System with a Flexible Earning Requirement.Behavior analysis in practice · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The teaching of receptive labels (i.e., auditory-visual conditional discriminations) is common among early intervention programs for individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Discrete trial teaching (DTT) is a common approach used to teach these receptive labels. Some have argued that the stimuli within the array, target and non-target, must be counterbalanced to prevent the development of undesired stimulus control. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of three different approaches to stimulus rotation to teach receptive labels to five young children diagnosed with ASD. These approaches included counterbalanced, fixed, and clinician's choice. The results of an adapted alternating treatment design replicated across three stimulus sets and five participants indicated that all three methods of rotation were effective. Maintenance and generalization for targets taught in all three conditions was also assessed. The implications of the results with respect to current teaching practices in early intervention programs 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.