{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015170670037926675, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.947368421052632, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Measurement Strategies in Chaining Research: Which Tells the Real Story?

A review of the chaining literature communicates mixed evaluations of procedural effectiveness. One of the dimensions along which this literature varies is the application of measurement strategies. In this analysis, the same data set was subjected to three different popular measurement strategies used in applied behavior analysis and special education (percent, frequency, and statistical procedures). Each of these strategies generated a different interpretation of the comparative effectiveness of backward chaining and total task training procedures. The comparative interpretations of this body of literature are discussed in light of the origins of behavioral measurement strategies in the operant laboratory.