ArticleJournal of applied behavior analysis2026
Comparing methods of evaluating sensitivity to common establishing operations and bias toward challenging behavior.
Article in Journal of applied behavior analysis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Within-Session Matching Analyses to Quantify the Effects of Individualized Preferred Interactions on Social Time Allocation.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comparing methods of evaluating sensitivity to common establishing operations and bias toward challenging behavior.Journal of applied behavior analysis · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent research has demonstrated the utility of recording and reinforcing appropriate behavior during functional analyses. We compared two contingency arrangements across repeated bias and sensitivity evaluations (BASEs), one that equated the contingencies for appropriate and challenging behavior (i.e., symmetrical contingencies) and another that only provided reinforcement for challenging behavior (i.e., asymmetrical contingencies). Six neurotypical children were recruited, and behavior was recorded on a Neutral to Severe Behavior Scale. We evaluated sensitivity to different types of establishing operations (EOs) and response bias toward appropriate versus challenging behavior for each participant. Greater sensitivity to EOs was observed under symmetrical contingencies, but more instances of severe challenging behavior were captured by asymmetrical contingencies. Bias toward challenging behavior was evident in both contingency arrangements. Results suggest that BASEs implementing symmetrical and asymmetrical contingencies could help identify risk factors for challenging behavior and inform preventive strategies.
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.