ArticleJournal of autism and developmental disorders2026
Evaluating the Effects of Skill-Based Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Single-Case Studies.
Article in Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 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
purposeThe skill-based treatment for challenging behaviour (SBT) is an intervention package that combines functional communication training with contingency-based delay and denial tolerance training. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to (a) investigate the application of SBT across diverse populations, setting, and target behaviours; and (b) to evaluate the effectiveness and social validity of SBT in reducing challenging behaviours.
methodsThis review was pre-registered on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42024561455). Seven databases were searched. Data were extracted on characteristics of studies, participants, and applications of SBT. Literature was assessed for quality using the Evaluative Method and Single Case Design Risk of Bias Tool. SBT outcomes were quantified with Baseline-Corrected Tau (Tau-BC).
resultsA total of 28 studies were reviewed, representing 99 individual SBT applications. SBT has been applied across participants with varying diagnoses, challenging behaviours, and levels of ability, though mostly in controlled settings by skilled implementers. Studies provided evidence for the social validity of SBT. Baseline-Corrected Tau indicated SBT shows good reduction in challenging behaviour (M = 0.47, range: - 0.35-1.00). The Evaluative Method indicated the literature to be of varying quality (borderline-strong = 7%; adequate = 13%; borderline-adequate = 43%; weak = 37%), and the evidence-based practice score suggests SBT to be a potentially evidence-based practice.
conclusionThe evaluative method indicates SBT to be an emerging evidence-based practice for addressing challenging behaviour, although the majority of the literature scored lower than adequate. We make recommendations for strengthening the literature base and outline key implications for practitioners.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42802216What 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.