Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35098029›Full record

ArticlePerspectives on behavior science2021

Scaling

David J Cox, Bryan Klapes, John Michael Falligant

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Perspectives on behavior science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Twiddling Bits.Perspectives on behavior science · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

David J CoxBehavioral Health Center of Excellence, Los Angeles, CA USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4376-2104
Bryan KlapesPhiladelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine, Suwanee, GA USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2116-2872
John Michael FalligantKennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore, MD USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The generalized matching law (GML) has been used to describe the behavior of individual organisms in operant chambers, artificial environments, and nonlaboratory human settings. Most of these analyses have used a handful of participants to determine how well the GML describes choice in the experimental arrangement or how some experimental manipulation influences estimated matching parameters. Though the GML accounts very well for choice in a variety of contexts, the generality of the GML to all individuals in a population is unknown. That is, no known studies have used the GML to describe the individual behavior of all individuals in a population. This is likely because the data from every individual in the population has not historically been available or because time and computational constraints made population-level analyses prohibitive. In this study, we use open data on baseball pitches to provide an example of how big data methods can be combined with the GML to: (1) scale within-subjects designs to the population level; (2) track individual members of a population over time; (3) easily segment the population into subgroups for further analyses within and between groups; and (4) compare GML fits and estimated parameters to performance. These were accomplished for each of 2,374 individuals in a population using 8,467,473 observations of behavior-environment relationships spanning 11 years. In total, this study is a proof of concept for how behavior analysts can use data-science techniques to extend individual-level quantitative analyses of behavior to the population-level focused on domains of social relevance.

Indexed as

baseballbehavioral data sciencebig data analyticsmatching law

Identifiers

PMID35098029
PMCPMC8738842

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.