ArticleBehavior analysis in practice2019
A Comparison of Two Procedures for Assessing Preference in a Classroom Setting.
Article in Behavior analysis in practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Using a Group Stimulus Preference Assessment to Design an Effective Group Contingency.Behavior analysis in practice · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare a method of assessing preference within a large group format to individual preference assessments. Individual preference assessments were conducted by presenting an array of four edible stimuli to a participant and allowing the participant to select a preferred stimulus, with stimuli removed from the array based on selection criteria. Group preference assessments were conducted in a classroom of 19 students, with all students responding simultaneously to a prompt to identify a preferred stimulus using Plickers-unique Quick Response code cards that are read by an accompanying smartphone app. During the group procedure, stimuli in the array were restricted on the individual participant level. Results indicated that the group procedure was a valid and rapid method of assessing preference within a group of individuals. Although additional research is required, practitioners and researchers may consider use of Plickers as a promising means of evaluating preference within a group 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.