Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37425984›Full record

ArticlePerspectives on behavior science2023

When Science Cannot Guide us: A Call to Action for Applied Behavior Analysts.

Dorothea C Lerman

Open access · hybridAbstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Perspectives on behavior science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 37% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Dorothea C LermanUniversity of Houston-Clear Lake, Houston, TX USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5807-274X
University of Houston - Clear Lake · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evidence presented in the ABAI Task Force Report on Contingent Electric Skin Shock (CESS) revealed serious ethical, clinical, and practical problems with the contemporary use of CESS. As a member of the task force, I ultimately concluded that our recommended position statement ("Position A") was a misguided attempt to uphold the field's commitment to client choice. Furthermore, information gathered by the task force supports an urgent call to find solutions to two additional troubling issues: a severe shortage of treatment services for severe problem behavior and the near-absence of research on treatment-resistant behavior. In this commentary, I discuss reasons Position A was not a tenable stance and why we must do better to help our most vulnerable clients.

Indexed as

ABAI position statementContingent electric skin shockEthical issuesSevere problem behaviorTreatment-resistant behavior

Identifiers

PMID37425984
PMCPMC10322805
OpenAlexW4379538040

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.