ArticleBehavior analysis in practice2024
Mand Modality Preference Assessments among High- and Low-Tech Options for Individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: A Systematic Review.
Article in Behavior analysis in practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Updated Recommendations for Reinforcement Schedule Thinning following Functional Communication Training.Behavior analysis in practice · 2024Review
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
The extant literature demonstrates that individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) exhibit preferences among communication modalities when multiple modalities are available and produce reinforcement on identical reinforcement schedules. High- and low-tech communication options, such as voice output devices and picture cards, are commonly recommended for individuals with limited vocal communication skills. In this study, we conducted a systematic literature review of research studies that implemented mand modality preference assessments (MMPAs) that included both a high- and low-tech communication option with individuals with IDD. We identified 27 studies meeting our inclusion criteria and summarized the participant demographics, MMPA design and procedural variations, and MMPA outcomes. The results suggested that high-tech communication options were generally more preferred over low-tech options. However, there was a high degree of variability in how the studies were conducted and conclusions were reached. We discuss some of the current research gaps and the implications for clinical practice.
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.