The University of Auckland.
J Appl Behav Anal. 2019 Jul;52(3):870-892. doi: 10.1002/jaba.578. Epub 2019 Jun 27.
We present a systematic review and a meta-analysis comparing the differential outcomes procedure to a nondifferential outcomes procedure among clinical and nonclinical populations. Sixty distinct experiments were included in the systematic review, 43 of which were included in the meta-analysis. We calculated pooled effect sizes for accuracy (overall accuracy, test accuracy, transfer accuracy) and acquisition outcomes (latency, errors, and trials to mastery). The meta-analysis revealed significant medium-to-large effect sizes for all three accuracy measures (pooled effect size range, 0.57 to 1.30). We found relatively greater effect sizes among clinical populations (effect size = 1.04). The single-subject experimental literature included in the systematic review was consistent with the findings from the group studies, demonstrating improvements in accuracy and speed of learning for the majority of participants. Moderator and subgroup analyses suggest that discrimination difficulty may induce relatively larger differential outcomes effects. The results indicate that the differential outcomes procedure can be a valuable addition to reinforcement-based interventions.
我们对临床和非临床人群中的差异结果程序与非差异结果程序进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析。在系统回顾中纳入了 60 个不同的实验，其中 43 个被纳入荟萃分析。我们计算了准确性（总体准确性、测试准确性、转移准确性）和获得结果（潜伏期、错误和达到掌握的尝试次数）的综合效应大小。荟萃分析显示，所有三种准确性测量的效应大小均为中等至较大（综合效应大小范围为 0.57 至 1.30）。我们发现临床人群中的效应大小相对较大（效应大小=1.04）。系统回顾中纳入的单被试实验文献与组研究的结果一致，表明大多数参与者的准确性和学习速度都有所提高。调节和亚组分析表明，辨别难度可能会引起相对较大的差异结果效应。结果表明，差异结果程序可以作为强化干预的有效补充。
