2023
DOI: 10.1007/s40732-023-00546-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Systematic Review of the Impact of Derived Relational Responding Technology in Raising Intelligence Scores

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

0
0
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 48 publications
0
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Two "relational training" protocols have been developed within behavior analysis which are explicitly derived from this operant view of relational responding: SMART (Strengthening Mental Abilities with Relational Training; Cassidy et al, 2011) and the PEAK relational training system . Both SMART and PEAK have shown efficacy at improving relational responding abilities (Beck et al, 2023;Dixon et al, 2021;May et al, 2022). As well as this, there is growing evidence that these training programmes may also lead to improvements on other outcomes such as IQ and educational attainment, which serves to further support the idea of relational responding as foundational in human cognition (e.g., Hayes & Stewart, 2016; but see May et al, 2022;Thirus et al, 2016).…”
mentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Two "relational training" protocols have been developed within behavior analysis which are explicitly derived from this operant view of relational responding: SMART (Strengthening Mental Abilities with Relational Training; Cassidy et al, 2011) and the PEAK relational training system . Both SMART and PEAK have shown efficacy at improving relational responding abilities (Beck et al, 2023;Dixon et al, 2021;May et al, 2022). As well as this, there is growing evidence that these training programmes may also lead to improvements on other outcomes such as IQ and educational attainment, which serves to further support the idea of relational responding as foundational in human cognition (e.g., Hayes & Stewart, 2016; but see May et al, 2022;Thirus et al, 2016).…”
mentioning
confidence: 97%