ArticleBehavior analysis in practice2024
A Survey of Why and How Clinicians Change Reinforcers during Teaching Sessions.
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current Practices for the Assessment and Treatment of Severe Problem Behavior: A Colorado-Based Survey.Behavior analysis in practice · 2026Article
- Characteristics of Qualitative Research in BehaviorBehavior analysis in practice · 2026Article
- Exploring Teachers' Familiarity and Perceptions of Preference Assessments.Behavior analysis in practice · 2026Article
- Improving Use of Social Communicative Gestures by Children with Autism.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A Behavioral Economic Measure of Sensitivity to Social Rewards in Children with and without Autism Spectrum Disorder.Research in autism · 2025Article
- On the Identification and Use of Social versus Nonsocial Reinforcers: A Review of Research Practices.Perspectives on behavior science · 2024Review
- Using Risk Ratios to Quantify Potential Behavior-Environment Relations.Perspectives on behavior science · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Preference assessments are used to make data-based decisions about which stimuli to use as reinforcers but they can be challenging to conduct frequently enough to avoid problems related to momentary shifts in preference and reinforcer efficacy. It remains unclear whether, why, and how clinicians change reinforcers on a momentary basis. Therefore, this study aimed to determine common reasons for, and methods of, changing reinforcers in practice. Most respondents indicated that they often change reinforcers during a session, do so when the client mands for or attends to different stimuli or refuses the current stimulus, and identify the new reinforcer based on recent client behaviors (e.g., mands) or by providing an informal choice between stimuli. Responses did not vary meaningfully based on respondent credentials, client characteristics, or service goals. Implications for clinical practice as well as future research on methods of momentary preference assessment and reinforcer identification are discussed. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40617-023-00847-4.
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.