ReviewJournal of applied behavior analysis
Recent developments and future directions for competing stimulus assessments.
Review in Journal of applied behavior analysis. 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.
- Recent developments and future directions for competing stimulus assessments.Journal of applied behavior analysisReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Competing stimulus assessments (CSAs) are designed to identify stimuli that reduce challenging behavior through reinforcer competition or substitution. Haddock and Hagopian (2020) found that CSAs demonstrate utility across functions and topographies of challenging behavior. Stimuli identified by CSAs often performed similarly in validation tests. Since that review, augmented CSA (A-CSA) procedures have demonstrated efficacy in identifying greater numbers of competing stimuli compared with free-access tests. Given these rapid advancements, another review appears warranted. The current review analyzed individual participant data to measure the prevalence, procedural characteristics, efficacy, and predictive validity of CSAs and A-CSAs across functions and use of high-competition stimuli in treatment packages. Approximately one third of applications used augmented procedures. Applications for socially reinforced behavior and subsequent treatment evaluations appear to be increasing. The efficacy of A-CSAs for automatically maintained behavior suggests that augmentations for socially reinforced behavior may prove fruitful. Future directions for CSA research 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.