ArticlePerspectives on behavior science2025
Reflecting upon Similarities and Differences among the IAT, the IRAP, and the FAST: Searching for Clarity.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
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
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.