ReviewBehavior analysis in practice2024
Systematic Review of Differential Reinforcement in Skill Acquisition.
Review 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this article was to review and summarize the literature investigating the impact of differential reinforcement on skill acquisition. Researchers synthesized data from 10 articles across the following categories: (1) participant characteristics; (2) setting; (3) reinforcement procedures; (4) within-subject replication; (5) results; and (6) secondary measures (e.g., social validity). Results indicated that most of the participants were male, had a diagnosis of autism, and communicated vocally. The differential reinforcement condition in which reinforcement favored independent responses (e.g., edible for independent; praise for prompted responses) was the most frequently employed differential reinforcement condition and it resulted in the acquisition of more responses or faster acquisition for most participants. In addition, when differing reinforcement procedures manipulating different parameters of reinforcements were compared, better outcomes were attained when the schedule of the reinforcer was manipulated within the differential reinforcement procedure relative to when quality or magnitude were manipulated. Limitations of the previous research, recommendations for future research, and implications for clinical practice are discussed.
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.