ArticleJournal of applied behavior analysis2020
Comparisons of standardized and interview-informed synthesized reinforcement contingencies relative to functional analysis.
Article in Journal of applied behavior analysis, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Human-operant evaluation of synthesized alternative reinforcement and resurgence.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior · 2026Article
- Prevalence of Error Types of Synthesized Contingency Assessments.Behavior analysis (Washington, D.C.) · 2026Article
- Functional Analysis Decision-Making Considerations.Behavior analysis in practice · 2025Review
- I am a Behavior Analyst and an Advocate for ABA: Are you?Perspectives on behavior science · 2025Review
- A scoping review of consecutive controlled case series studies.Journal of applied behavior analysis · 2025Article
- On the Evidence for Interactive Effects During and Following Synthesized Contingency Assessments.Behavioral interventions : theory & practice in residential & community-based clinical programs · 2025Article
- The Challenges Ahead: Concepts, Analytics, and Ethics of Value-Based Care in Applied Behavior Analysis.Behavior analysis in practice · 2024Review
- On the Reliability and Treatment Utility of the Practical Functional Assessment Process.Behavior analysis in practice · 2022Article
- Conducting Translational Research in the Context of Patient Care.Perspectives on behavior science · 2022Article
- An Evaluation of "Balance": a Home-Based, Parent-Implemented Program Addressing Emerging Problem Behavior.Behavior analysis in practice · 2021Article
- Treating destructive behavior reinforced by increased caregiver compliance with the participant's mands.Journal of applied behavior analysis · 2020Article
- The consecutive controlled case series: Design, data-analytics, and reporting methods supporting the study of generality.Journal of applied behavior analysis · 2020Article
- Mitigating resurgence of destructive behavior using the discriminative stimuli of a multiple schedule.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior · 2020Article
- Evaluation of an Omnibus Mand in the Treatment of Multiply Controlled Destructive Behavior.Behavioral development bulletin · 2019Article
- A component analysis of evocative and reinforcing variables influencing challenging behavior.Journal of applied behavior analysisArticle
- Protective procedures in functional analysis of self-injurious behavior: An updated scoping review.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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We compared the functions of problem behavior identified by (a) a functional analysis (FA), (b) an interview-informed synthesized contingency analysis (IISCA) that was informed by the results of an open-ended interview and a structured observation, and (c) a standardized-synthesized contingency analysis (SSCA) in which we synthesized three common functions of problem behavior across 12 individuals in a controlled consecutive case series. We then compared outcomes across assessments. The FA was sufficient in identifying the variables maintaining problem behavior for 11 of the 12 participants, replicating the findings of Fisher, Greer, Romani, Zangrillo, and Owen (2016). Error type (i.e., false positives, false negatives) and error prevalence were similar across functions identified by the IISCA and the SSCA, calling into question the utility of the open-ended interview and the structured observation that informed the IISCA.
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.