Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40708962›Full record

ArticleThe Analysis of verbal behavior2025

Acquisition of Secondary Targets During Tact and Intraverbal Instruction With Instructive Feedback.

Breanna K Anderson, Katie M Wiskow

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Analysis of verbal behavior, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Breanna K AndersonCollege of Science, California State University, One University Circle, Turlock, CA 95382 USA.
Katie M WiskowCollege of Science, California State University, One University Circle, Turlock, CA 95382 USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7737-2556

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Instructive feedback is a procedure that introduces additional stimuli before or after a learning trial and can result in the acquisition of stimuli not directly taught. Further research may help us better understand the conditions under which instructive feedback is effective and preferred. In the present study, the experimenters presented intraverbal instructive feedback during tact and intraverbal teaching and compared the rate of acquisition for primary and secondary targets with a 6-year-old autistic child. The experimenters evaluated preference for learning method with a concurrent-chains procedure. Finally, the experimenters measured the frequency of echoics during teaching sessions. The tact and intraverbal conditions resulted in similar acquisition of primary and secondary targets, and the participant reported a preference for the tact condition. Further, there was initially a higher frequency of echoics to the primary target. As acquisition increased toward mastery, there were fewer echoics to the primary target and higher echoics to the secondary target. These results suggest that overt echoic behavior may facilitate the acquisition of secondary targets for some learners and demonstrate how clinicians may provide the learner with a choice of teaching strategies. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40616-025-00215-z.

Indexed as

Generative learningInstructive feedbackIntraverbalsTactTelehealth

Identifiers

PMID40708962
PMCPMC12283488

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.