ArticleJournal of the experimental analysis of behavior2026
Comparing delayed matching to sample with three variations of the training-IRAP for establishing derived relations.
Article in Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior, 2026. 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.
- Comparing delayed matching to sample with three variations of the training-IRAP for establishing derived relations.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior · 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
Abstract
A common method for studying derived relations is the matching-to-sample (MTS) preparation. However, certain aspects of its training format potentially hinder the emergence of new relations. The training version of the implicit relational assessment procedure (training-IRAP) may present an alternative. Our primary objective involved comparing the effectiveness of delayed MTS(2s) and training-IRAP procedures on participant yield. The secondary objective involved comparing mean number of training blocks per procedure. Given additional components in the standard training-IRAP not found in MTS, changes were made to the former, producing the modified training-IRAP and delayed modified training-IRAP(2s). Sixty-eight typically developing students participated in a between-subjects design. Two classes comprising five abstract stimuli were employed. Yield was analyzed at three levels, 91.67, 83.33, and 79% correct responses, with at least 87.5% correct responses at baseline mixed-block maintenance. All participants maintained baseline criterion during tests. At the three levels of analyses, the modified versions of training-IRAP produced higher yield, followed by DMTS(2s) and then the standard training-IRAP. Mean number of blocks to complete training phases was lowest for the delayed MTS(2s) and delayed modified training-IRAP(2s) groups. Limitations and implications of the findings toward greater precision, scope, and depth in conceptual, experimental, and applied settings are discussed.
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.