A parametric analysis of varying levels of consequence-based procedural fidelity errors when learning new tasks.

Sydney Burlison, Denys Brand, Makenna R Wittman, Joshua Bensemann, Ciobha A McKeown, Caio F Miguel, Hser N Moo

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article 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.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

A parametric analysis of varying levels of consequence-based procedural fidelity errors when learning new tasks.Journal of applied behavior analysis
Article

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

7 authors.

Sydney BurlisonCalifornia State University, Sacramento, Psychology Department, Sacramento, California, USA.

Denys BrandCalifornia State University, Sacramento, Psychology Department, Sacramento, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8596-1975

Makenna R WittmanCalifornia State University, Sacramento, Psychology Department, Sacramento, California, USA.

Joshua BensemannUniversity of Auckland, School of Computer Science, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1301-4861

Ciobha A McKeownCalifornia State University, Sacramento, Psychology Department, Sacramento, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2967-7328

Caio F MiguelCalifornia State University, Sacramento, Psychology Department, Sacramento, California, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5624-6718

Hser N MooCalifornia State University, Sacramento, Psychology Department, Sacramento, California, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Procedural fidelity is the extent to which procedures are implemented as prescribed. Fidelity errors involving the delivery of consequences can have detrimental effects during discrimination training. This study consisted of a human-operant evaluation of how varying levels of fidelity errors involving consequences may affect performance on an arbitrary computerized matching-to-sample task. We investigated how implementing the task with varying levels of fidelity may affect learning and how initially exposing learners to varying levels of fidelity affects ongoing performance once errors were corrected for six participants. The results indicated that varying fidelity levels delayed learning for five out of six participants. However, all six participants mastered the task once the errors were corrected. We discuss the implications of the results and provide suggestions for future research.

Indexed as

Conditioning, OperantDiscrimination LearningReinforcement, PsychologyFemaleHumansMalebehavioral interventionsconditional discriminationserror reinforcementprocedural fidelity

Identifiers

PMID42663172

DOI10.1002/jaba.70084

PMCPMC13523084

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

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.