ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Assessing Social Consequences for Task Completion in Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder.
Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We used a concurrent operant assessment (COA) to evaluate social preferences for individuals with autism spectrum disorder across three comparison conditions: praise versus no interaction, preferred conversation topics versus no interaction, and preferred conversation topics versus praise. First, a multiple stimulus without replacement preference assessment was conducted to identify the preferred conversation topics and interests for all participants. Second, a COA was conducted where participants were able to choose which consequence they wanted to receive while working on an academic task during each comparison condition. We found that five out of six participants allocated more time to the praise side over no interaction, five out of six participants allocated more time to the preferred conversation topics over no interaction, and four out of six participants allocated more time to the preferred conversation topics over praise. The results indicate that social stimuli such as praise and preferred conversation topics may function as preferred stimuli indicating a need for future researchers and clinicians to individualize reinforcers. Thus, a proof-of-concept study is established to evaluate procedures for indicating preferences for types of social interaction.
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.