On the longevity of behavioral interventions for challenging behavior
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The capacity for a treatment to maintain its effects over time may be the most critical component of behavioral interventions for challenging behavior as treatments that fail to persist are likely to be of little value to society. We reviewed the quality and quantity of different types of post‐intervention data for the treatment of challenging behavior in studies published over the last 7 years. We found that for the majority of participants at least one measure of maintenance, fading, or follow‐up was reported but with limited information regarding the quality of those measures. Reports of secondary variables related to post‐intervention data (e.g., latency to measurement) were also uncommon. We discuss possible explanations for the paucity of post‐intervention data, barriers to obtaining post‐intervention data, strategies for obtaining these data, and implications for the external validity of behavioral interventions for challenging behavior. We provide recommendations for increasing the probability that post‐intervention data are included in applied research on challenging behavior.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it