ArticleBehavior analysis in practice2018
Establishing Consumer Protections for Research in Human Service Agencies.
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Consent and Assent Practices in Behavior Analytic Research.Behavior analysis in practice · 2025Article
- Contextualizing Contemporary Research Ethics Policies and Practices in Significant Historical Events.Behavior analysis in practice · 2025Article
- Trauma-Informed Care (TIC) of Persons with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: A Pilot Survey of Board Certified Behavior Analysts at a Human Services Organization.Behavior analysis in practice · 2025Article
- Research Ethics for Behavior Analysts in Practice.Behavior analysis in practice · 2023Review
- Practical Considerations for Researchers at Teaching-Focused Colleges.Behavior analysis in practice · 2022Review
- Overcoming Barriers to Applied Research: A Guide for Practitioners.Behavior analysis in practice · 2020Article
- Quality Improvement and Behavior Analysis: A Dynamic Duo.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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Conducting research in practice settings is the primary mechanism for establishing a strong foundation of evidence for clinical decision making. In behavior analysis, this type of research frequently originates from university-based systems that have established institutional review boards. Independent human service agencies that want to contribute applied research to the literature base that is clinically meaningful and conducted in an ethical fashion must establish a research review committee (RRC). The purpose of this article is to provide information and guidance for establishing and maintaining the activity of an RRC in a human service setting.
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.