Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41550365›Full record

ArticlePerspectives on behavior science2025

Reflecting upon Similarities and Differences among the IAT, the IRAP, and the FAST: Searching for Clarity.

Alceu Regaço, Colin Harte, Dermot Barnes-Holmes, Julio C de Rose

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Perspectives on behavior science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Alceu RegaçoUniversidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5209-0082
Colin HarteUniversidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2320-2361
Dermot Barnes-HolmesUlster University, Coleraine, Northern Ireland UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9419-9131
Julio C de RoseUniversidade Federal de São Carlos, São Carlos, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9122-8948

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The development of procedures to assess the psychological functions of stimuli has long been a prevalent endeavor in psychological science. It can be argued that one of the most influential of such procedures is the implicit association test (IAT), which was conceived as a measure of implicit attitudes within social-cognitive psychology. Two other procedures, developed within a behavior-analytic theoretical framework, were inspired by the IAT: the implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP) and the function acquisition speed test (FAST). The current article aims to thoroughly describe and compare the IAT, the IRAP and the FAST, focusing on their procedural characteristics and theoretical backgrounds, before then considering theoretical implications specific to each procedure. Finally, we briefly reflect on a number of theoretical implications that arose from the foregoing comparisons. In so doing, several points of contact and departure are highlighted. We conclude by advocating for an equitable and comprehensive evaluation of these methodologies when considering their use within the experimental analysis of human behavior.

Indexed as

FASTIATIRAP

Identifiers

PMID41550365
PMCPMC12811194

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.