ArticleBehavior analysis in practice2024
Using a Group Stimulus Preference Assessment to Design an Effective Group Contingency.
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.
- A comparison of the Don't Stop! Game and the Step it UP! Game to increase step counts of adults with disabilities.Journal of applied behavior analysis · 2026Trial
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 study was to extend the limited research on group stimulus preference assessment (SPA) procedures. The study occurred in two sections of a middle school special education classroom and included 20 students with multi-categorical disabilities. A paired stimulus group SPA was used to identify a preference hierarchy for each class, and results were validated using single case designs in which baseline conditions were compared to group contingency conditions with alternating sessions of the highest-preferred (high-p) and lowest-preferred (low-p) consequences. Both group contingency conditions increased the percentage of students prepared for class relative to baseline; however, consistently higher levels of students were prepared for class during high-p sessions. Student responses on a daily quiz were similar in both conditions, but social validity surveys indicated students felt the most motivation and enjoyment during high-p sessions. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40617-024-01003-2.
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.