ArticleThe Analysis of verbal behavior2026
Effects of Antecedent and Consequence Secondary Targets on Intraverbal Teaching.
Article in The Analysis of verbal behavior, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) may have difficulty with social interactions and communication. Thus, identifying procedures that are efficient and effective at improving communication is important. Instructive feedback (IF) is a procedure that has been found to increase communication for individuals with developmental disabilities by teaching a primary target (PT) and embedding a secondary target (ST) within the learning trial. However, different procedural configurations exist across the IF literature, which may influence its efficacy and efficiency. The purpose of this study was to compare the delivery of antecedent and consequence ST when teaching different tacts and intraverbals to a child diagnosed with ASD across multiple phases and stimulus sets. In phase 1, we compared teaching antecedent and consequence ST to no ST and found that incorporating ST resulted in better acquisition of ST compared to no ST. In phases 2 and 3, we compared only antecedent and consequence ST and showed that both conditions led to the acquisition of intraverbals; however, acquisition rates differed across conditions. Finally, in phase 3, we assessed the participant's allocation of responding between the different ST types in a concurrent-link arrangement. The participant allocated responding more to the consequence condition, which was generally more efficient at producing ST acquisition in phases 2 and 3. Possible explanations for differences in acquisition related to when ST were delivered are discussed, as well as areas for future research. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40616-026-00229-1.
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.