Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Artículo Open Access |
| Published: |
Wiley
2025
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bin.70021 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1867003583269961728 |
|---|---|
| author | Amalix M. Flores Catia Cividini‐Motta Holly N. Denette Luisa T. Angelucci |
| author_facet | Amalix M. Flores Catia Cividini‐Motta Holly N. Denette Luisa T. Angelucci Amalix M. Flores Catia Cividini‐Motta Holly N. Denette Luisa T. Angelucci |
| collection | Wiley Open Access |
| contents | Review of Current Procedural Variations of the High‐Probability Instructional Sequence Amalix M. Flores Catia Cividini‐Motta Holly N. Denette Luisa T. Angelucci Behavioral Interventions ABSTRACTThe high‐probability instructional sequence (HPIS) is a widely used behavior analytical intervention comprising multiple components and procedural variations; therefore, identifying the key elements contributing to its efficacy is crucial. Twenty articles published between 2010 and 2022 met our inclusion criteria. We quantified the association between HPIS procedural variations and the intervention's efficacy. Across the studies included in this review, HPIS was associated with a moderately large effect or a large effect and deemed as effective for at least 60% of the data sets when (a) during the compliance assessment, compliance was exposed to appetitive consequences, (b) during the HPIS evaluation, the same combination of stimuli (e.g., edible and praise; tactile stimulus and praise) was delivered contingent on compliance with the high‐p and low‐p, and (c) during the HPIS evaluation different consequences were provided for compliance with the low‐p and high‐p and combined stimuli were presented as a reinforcer following compliance to low‐p (i.e., praise for compliance with the high‐p and praise and tactile stimulus for compliance with the low‐p). The associations identified in this review can guide the design and implementation of HPIS in applied settings. Additionally, the results highlight the need for additional empirical evaluations of isolated and combined components of HPIS to determine their relative contribution to the intervention efficacy and to determine the generality of the results of previous studies. 10.1002/bin.70021 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/bin.70021 |
| format | Artículo Open Access |
| id | wiley_oa_10_1002_bin_70021 |
| institution | Wiley Open Access |
| license_str_mv | http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | wiley_oa |
| spellingShingle | Review of Current Procedural Variations of the High‐Probability Instructional Sequence Amalix M. Flores Catia Cividini‐Motta Holly N. Denette Luisa T. Angelucci Behavioral Interventions Review of Current Procedural Variations of the High‐Probability Instructional Sequence Amalix M. Flores Catia Cividini‐Motta Holly N. Denette Luisa T. Angelucci Behavioral Interventions ABSTRACTThe high‐probability instructional sequence (HPIS) is a widely used behavior analytical intervention comprising multiple components and procedural variations; therefore, identifying the key elements contributing to its efficacy is crucial. Twenty articles published between 2010 and 2022 met our inclusion criteria. We quantified the association between HPIS procedural variations and the intervention's efficacy. Across the studies included in this review, HPIS was associated with a moderately large effect or a large effect and deemed as effective for at least 60% of the data sets when (a) during the compliance assessment, compliance was exposed to appetitive consequences, (b) during the HPIS evaluation, the same combination of stimuli (e.g., edible and praise; tactile stimulus and praise) was delivered contingent on compliance with the high‐p and low‐p, and (c) during the HPIS evaluation different consequences were provided for compliance with the low‐p and high‐p and combined stimuli were presented as a reinforcer following compliance to low‐p (i.e., praise for compliance with the high‐p and praise and tactile stimulus for compliance with the low‐p). The associations identified in this review can guide the design and implementation of HPIS in applied settings. Additionally, the results highlight the need for additional empirical evaluations of isolated and combined components of HPIS to determine their relative contribution to the intervention efficacy and to determine the generality of the results of previous studies. 10.1002/bin.70021 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor |
| title | Review of Current Procedural Variations of the High‐Probability Instructional Sequence |
| topic | Behavioral Interventions |
| url | https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bin.70021 |