ArticleJournal of applied behavior analysis2024
Relative preference for distinct reinforcers maintaining destructive behavior.
Article in Journal of applied behavior analysis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The literature offers few recommendations for sequencing exposure to treatment conditions with individuals with multiply maintained destructive behavior. Identifying relative preference for the functional reinforcers maintaining destructive behavior may be one means of guiding that decision. The present study presents a preliminary attempt at developing a robust relative preference and reinforcer assessment for individuals with multiply maintained destructive behavior. Guided and free-choice trials were implemented in which participants chose between two multiple-schedule arrangements, each of which programmed signaled periods of isolated reinforcer availability and unavailability. Consistent participant choice and responding during free-choice trials was then used to thin the corresponding schedule of reinforcement. The results demonstrated a strong preference for one of the two functional reinforcers for all four participants, yet preferences differed across participants and were not well predicted by responding in prior analyses.
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.