Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

S Dymond

Publications and source records attributed to S Dymond.

6 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2000

International publication trends of JABA authorship.

The present study addressed international publication trends in JABA authorship between 1970 and 1999. First, we analyzed authorship patterns to identify trends in the appearance of new first authors, unfamiliar authors, and frequent contributors. Second, articles were assigned to either a North American or an international category. The data show a decline in the number of articles by new authors and an increase in the publications of frequent contributors from North America. Trends are shown in comparison to those from the American Journal on Mental Retardation.

Authorship↗
PubMed1995

A transformation of self-discrimination response functions in accordance with the arbitrarily applicable relations of sameness, more than, and less than.

In Experiment 1, 2 experimental subjects were given pretraining of nonarbitrary relations that brought their responses under the control of four contextual stimuli; same, opposite, more than, and less than. One control subject was not exposed to this pretraining. The 2 pretrained subjects and the 3rd nonpretrained subject then received training in six arbitrary relations, the following four relations being the most critical: same/A1-B1, same/A1-C1, less than/A1-B2, more than/A1-C2. All 3 subjects were then tested for seven derived relations, the following three relations being the most important: same/B1-C1, more than/B1-C2, less than/B1-B2. The 2 pretrained subjects, but not the nonpretrained subject, showed the derived relations. One of the stimuli (B1) from the relational network and two novel stimuli (X1 and X2) were then used to train three different self-discrimination responses on three complex schedules of reinforcement. That is, all 3 subjects were trained to pick X1 if they had not emitted a response, to pick B1 if they had emitted one response only, and to pick X2 if they had emitted two responses only. The 2 pretrained subjects, but not the nonpretrained subject, showed the predicted transformation of self-discrimination response functions in accordance with the relations of sameness, more than, and less than (i.e., no response, pick B2; one response only, pick C1; and two responses only, pick C2). In Experiment 2, 2 new subjects were employed, and the arbitrary relational training and testing phases were modified to control for a procedural artifact that may have contributed to the results of the first experiment. Experiment 2 replicated the findings of Experiment 1. The pattern of results support the utility of a relational frames approach to understanding derived stimulus relations.

Journal Article↗
PubMed1994

A transfer of self-discrimination response functions through equivalence relations.

The present study tested the idea that human self-discrimination response functions may transfer through equivalence relations. Four subjects were trained in six symbolic matching-to-sample tasks (if see A1, choose B1; A1-C1, A2-B2, A2-C2, A3-B3, A3-C3) and were then tested for the formation of three equivalence relations (B1-C1, B2-C2, B3-C3). Two of the B stimuli (B1 and B2) were then used to train two different self-discrimination responses using either detailed instructions (Subjects 1 to 3) or minimal instructions (Subject 4) on two complex schedules of reinforcement (i.e., subjects were trained to pick the B1 stimulus if they had not emitted a response, and to pick the B2 stimulus if they had emitted one or more responses on the previous schedule). All 4 subjects showed the predicted transfer of self-discrimination response functions through equivalence relations (i.e., no response on the schedule, pick C1; one or more responses on the schedule, pick C2). Subjects also demonstrated this transfer when they were required to discriminate their schedule performance before exposure to the schedule (i.e., "what I intend to do"). Four control subjects were also used in the study. Two of these (Subjects 5 and 6) were not exposed to any form of matching-to-sample training and testing (nonequivalence controls). The 2 remaining subjects (7 and 8) were exposed to matching-to-sample training and testing that incorporated stimuli not used during the transfer test; C1 and C2 were replaced by N1 and N2 during the matching-to-sample training and testing, but C1 and C2 were used for the transfer tests (equivalence controls). All 4 subjects failed to produce the self-discrimination transfer performances observed with the experimental subjects.

Journal Article↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Why do key integrated delivery stakeholders really matter? Assessing control, coalitions, resources and power.

This is the fourth in a series of articles describing and interpreting the results from the Facing the Uncertain Future (FUF) study. This article focuses on one vital aspect of strategic stakeholder management: assessment of key stakeholders. Specifically, the article uses Round Two data and presents an assessment of four key medical group practice stakeholders: integrated delivery systems/networks (IDS/Ns), managed care organizations (MCOs), physicians and hospitals. These key stakeholders were identified by medical group practice executives as some of the most important stakeholders in the year 2000. These four stakeholders are assessed on the criteria of organizational control, coalition formation, control of resources, and relative power. The FUF study was conducted jointly between the Center for Research in Ambulatory Health Care Administration (the research and development arm of MGMA), and The Institute for Management and Leadership Research (IMLR), College of Business Administration at Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas. MGMA's American College of Medical Practice Executives, faculty of Texas Tech University's Ph.D. and M.B.A. Programs in Health Organization Management (HOM), and faculty from the University of Alabama at Birmingham collaborated on the project. Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, Ill., provided funding for the FUF project. The administration of Round One was completed in the Fall of 1994. The administration of Round Two was completed in the summer of 1995. Selected Round One and Round Two results have previously been presented in educational programs and publications.

Community Networks↗