No abstract

No abstract

Empirical analysis of features of the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure may be important to results. As such, the current research compared effects of response options that were contextually cued relational responses (C rel s) versus relational coherence indicators (RCIs) across two IRAPs conducted with college student participants (N = 40). The IRAPs were similar except for the response options used, which were either "Same"/"Opposite" (C rels) versus "Accurate"/"Inaccurate" (RCIs). D-scores for both IRAPs showed the expected IRAP effect (bias). A critical difference was noted dependent upon the type of response options used: the IRAP effect was shown to be stronger when C rel response options were used. There was no statistically significant interaction effect shown between response option used and order of completion (i.e., C rel IRAP first vs. RCI IRAP first), however, there was a statistically significant interaction effect shown between type of response options used on the IRAP, order of completion, and block-order presentation (consistent trial-blocks vs. inconsistent trial blocks presented first). Findings are discussed regarding potential implications and further research. Keywords IRAP. C rel s. RCIs. response options The Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP; Barnes-Holmes et al. 2006) is the first behavior-analytic measure to contribute to the research literature in implicit cognition across a wide range of socially sensitive topics. IRAP research has examined implicit bias towards homo-and heterosexuality (Cullen and Barnes-Holmes 2008), implicit beauty bias (Murphy et al. 2014), implicit racial bias (Barnes-Holmes et al. 2010), implicit self-esteem (Remue et al. 2013), and implicit bias toward sexualization of children among sexual offenders (Dawson et al. 2009). A sizeable amount of IRAP research has been directed towards refining and thus strengthening the IRAP as a measure of implicit bias. Research has shown that the IRAP is difficult to fake * Carol Murphy

To compare client response to a 3-stage phased intervention for complex trauma, comparing (1) those who received face-to-face intervention with (2) those who received a hybrid of face-to-face moving mid-therapy to online intervention with (3) those who received online only. Comparing quantitative and qualitative outcome data from 3 consecutive groups (N=22) who participated in a 3-stage phased intervention for complex trauma (1) face-to-face intervention (n=7); (2) a mix of face-to-face and online intervention (n=6); (3) online only (n=9). Analysis of quantitative data indicated a reduction in trauma symptoms across all modes of delivery. Reliable change indices suggested that face-to-face intervention facilitated the greatest change. In response to questions, participants spoke about (1) having a positive experience of the intervention, (2) advice to future group members, (3) constructive feedback, and (4) the experience of engaging online. Responses indicated that the experience of all groups were broadly similar. Participants reported strong group connections and an increased understanding of trauma. Minor differences, specific to the practicalities of each group, were found in the constructive feedback offered. Comments regarding the online experience highlighted the accessibility of the modality and indicated a sense of diminished group cohesion. Overall, participants reported a preference for face-to-face engagement. The majority of participants benefitted from the intervention regardless of modality. However, there is tentative evidence that the online format was the delivery mode associated with poorer-performing clients. In the future, online engagement and client preference should be considered carefully.

No abstract