ArticleJournal of applied behavior analysis
Protective procedures in functional analysis of self-injurious behavior: An updated scoping review.
Article in Journal of applied behavior analysis. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unmasking social functions: Outcomes from a retrospective consecutive case series of 19 applications.Journal of applied behavior analysis · 2026Article
- Using wearable technology to evaluate the electrodermal activity of therapists assessing challenging behavior.Journal of applied behavior analysis · 2026Article
- A scoping review of consecutive controlled case series studies.Journal of applied behavior analysis · 2025Article
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
Despite the efficacy of functional analyses in identifying the function of challenging behavior, clinicians report not always using them, partly due to safety concerns. Understanding how researchers employ safeguards to mitigate risks, particularly with dangerous topographies like self-injurious behavior (SIB), is important to guide research and practice. However, the results of a scoping review of functional analyses of self-injurious behavior conducted by Weeden et al. (2010) revealed that only 19.83% of publications included protections. We extended the work of Weeden et al. to determine whether reporting has improved. We observed increases in all but two types of protections reviewed by Weeden et al. Additionally, we included new protections not reported by Weeden et al. In total, 69.52% of the studies included at least one protective procedure and 44.39% specified that the protections were used for safety. It appears that reporting has increased since Weeden et al. called for improved descriptions of participant protections.
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.