ArticlePerspectives on behavior science2024
Pragmatic Application of Risk Ratios in Behavior Analysis.
Article in Perspectives on behavior science, 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.
- Within-Session Matching Analyses to Quantify the Effects of Individualized Preferred Interactions on Social Time Allocation.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Joslyn and Morris (2024) recently published a tutorial on adapting and applying risk ratios to within-subject behavioral data. Newland (2024; this issue) offers a commentary on Joslyn and Morris that expands the discussion of risk ratios and how they are typically applied in group comparison research. He is also critical of the approach described by Joslyn and Morris, and advocates against its use primarily because it differs from the traditional calculation. Although we agree with many of Newland's assertions about the benefits of the traditional approach, we disagree that it is the only method of evaluating relative risk that may be useful to behavior analysts. In this response to Newland, we summarize and respond to his concerns, discuss our own concerns with his perspective, consider variables that may affect the relative utility of the two approaches, and provide concluding remarks.
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.