ArticleBehavior analysis in practice2020
The Effects of Standard and Enhanced Data Sheets and Brief Video Training on Implementation of Conditional Discrimination Training.
Article in Behavior analysis in practice, 2020. 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.
- Comparison of Enhanced and Standard Data Sheets on Treatment Fidelity and Data Collection for Tact Training.Behavior analysis in practice · 2024Article
- Prediction of Response Patterns during Conditional Discrimination Training across Data Recording Methods.Behavior analysis in practice · 2023Article
- A Tutorial for the Design and Use of Assessment-Based Instruction in Practice.Behavior analysis in practice · 2021Article
- Stimulus Control Research and Practice: Considerations of Stimulus Disparity and Salience for Discrimination Training.Behavior analysis in practice · 2021Review
- A parametric analysis of varying levels of consequence-based procedural fidelity errors when learning new tasks.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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Grow and LeBlanc (2013) described practice recommendations for conducting conditional discrimination training with children with autism. One recommendation involved using a specially designed datasheet to provide the preset target stimulus for each trial along with counterbalancing the location of stimuli if a three-item array of comparison stimuli. This study evaluated whether the recommended data sheet would lead to higher procedural integrity of counterbalancing trials compared to a standard data sheet (i.e., targets and arrays are not pre-set). Forty behavior therapists from two provider agencies participated. Participants were randomly assigned to either the standard data sheet condition or the enhanced data sheet condition. Participants watched a short video on Grow and LeBlanc's practice recommendations for a matching task and an orientation to the datasheet for the assigned condition, and then implemented the matching task with a confederate serving in the role of the child with autism. The enhanced data sheet resulted in higher accuracy of implementation on counterbalancing than the standard data sheet, with the largest difference for rotation of the target stimulus across trials and for counterbalancing the placement of the correct comparison stimulus in the array.
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.