Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Radical Chain-Growth Polymerization: Chain Branching01:17

Radical Chain-Growth Polymerization: Chain Branching

2.4K
The skeletal structure of polymers synthesized via radical polymerization is always branched. For example, the polymerization of ethylene by radical polymerization results in a low-density grade of polyethylene with a heavily branched skeletal structure. Here, the radical site abstracts hydrogen from the growing chain, and the radical site shifts from the end (a primary carbon center) to anywhere within the growing chain (a secondary carbon center). Consequently, the part of the chain from the...
2.4K
Ziegler–Natta Chain-Growth Polymerization: Overview01:17

Ziegler–Natta Chain-Growth Polymerization: Overview

3.8K
Ziegler–Natta polymerization is another form of addition or chain‐growth polymerization used for synthesizing linear polymers over branched polymers. The catalyst used for polymerization is the Ziegler–Natta catalyst, named after Karl Ziegler and Giulio Natta, who developed it in 1953. This catalyst is an organometallic complex of titanium tetrachloride and triethyl aluminum, with the active form of the catalyst being an alkyl titanium compound. Using the Ziegler–Natta...
3.8K
Radical Chain-Growth Polymerization: Overview01:10

Radical Chain-Growth Polymerization: Overview

3.0K
Chain-growth or addition polymerization is successive addition reactions of monomers with a polymer chain. In radical chain-growth polymerization, the reaction proceeds via a free-radical intermediate. The free radical is formed from radical initiators, which spontaneously generate free radicals by homolytic fission. Organic peroxides (such as dibenzoyl peroxide, as shown in Figure 1) or azo compounds are popular radical initiators. A low concentration ratio of radical initiator to monomer is...
3.0K
Group Design02:01

Group Design

10.1K
The most basic experimental design involves two groups: the experimental group and the control group. The two groups are designed to be the same except for one difference— experimental manipulation. The experimental group gets the experimental manipulation—that is, the treatment or variable being tested—and the control group does not. Since experimental manipulation is the only difference between the experimental and control groups, we can be sure that any differences between...
10.1K
Sequence Networks of Rotating Machines01:24

Sequence Networks of Rotating Machines

444
A Y-connected synchronous generator, grounded through a neutral impedance, is designed to produce balanced internal phase voltages with only positive-sequence components. The generator's sequence networks include a source voltage that is exclusively in the positive-sequence network. The sequence components of line-to-ground voltages at the generator terminals illustrate this configuration.
Zero-sequence current induces a voltage drop across the generator's neutral impedance and other...
444
Anionic Chain-Growth Polymerization: Overview01:20

Anionic Chain-Growth Polymerization: Overview

2.5K
The polymerization process that involves carbanion as an intermediate is called anionic polymerization. It is also a type of addition or chain-growth polymerization. Anionic polymerization gets initiated by a strong nucleophile such as an organolithium or a Grignard reagent. The most commonly used initiator for anionic polymerization is butyl lithium. Monomers involved in anionic polymerization must possess a vinyl group bonded to one or two electron-withdrawing groups. For instance,...
2.5K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same journal

Peeling Back the Curtain: A Primer on the General Peer-Review and Publication Process in Behavior Analysis.

Behavior analysis in practice·2026
Same journal

Incorporating Qualitative Data when Training Behavior Analysts.

Behavior analysis in practice·2026
Same journal

Measurement of Emotions Tacting for Empathic Responding (METER): An Example of a Process for Creating an Inclusive Assessment of Emotion Recognition using Validated and Diverse Facial Expression Stimuli.

Behavior analysis in practice·2026
Same journal

Correction: Introduction to "Embracing Qualitative Research in Behavior Analysis: Lessons of Qualitative Research in/and Practice"-Part 2, Personal, Professional, and Pedagogical Perspectives.

Behavior analysis in practice·2026
Same journal

Conditioned Motivating Operations: Examples and Practical Considerations.

Behavior analysis in practice·2026
Same journal

Addressing Pervasive Myths About Qualitative Research to Promote Methodological Diversity in Applied Behavior Analysis.

Behavior analysis in practice·2026

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Dec 30, 2025

Operation of the Collaborative Composite Manufacturing CCM System
10:09

Operation of the Collaborative Composite Manufacturing CCM System

Published on: October 1, 2019

7.0K

An Application of the Group-Oriented Concurrent-Chains Arrangement.

Kristina K Vargo1, Kathleen Becknell1

  • 1School of Teaching and Learning, Sam Houston State University, 1908 Bobby K. Marks Dr., Box 2119, Huntsville, TX 77341 USA.

Behavior Analysis in Practice
|January 25, 2020
PubMed
Summary

This study compared three group contingencies for managing disruptive behavior in eighth graders. All methods reduced disruptions, with students preferring the independent group contingency most.

Keywords:
Concurrent-chains arrangementsGroup contingenciesPreferences

More Related Videos

Author Spotlight: Introduction to Active Probe Atomic Force Microscopy with Quattro-Parallel Cantilever Arrays
05:04

Author Spotlight: Introduction to Active Probe Atomic Force Microscopy with Quattro-Parallel Cantilever Arrays

Published on: June 13, 2023

2.2K
Spatial Separation of Molecular Conformers and Clusters
10:37

Spatial Separation of Molecular Conformers and Clusters

Published on: January 9, 2014

11.6K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Dec 30, 2025

Operation of the Collaborative Composite Manufacturing CCM System
10:09

Operation of the Collaborative Composite Manufacturing CCM System

Published on: October 1, 2019

7.0K
Author Spotlight: Introduction to Active Probe Atomic Force Microscopy with Quattro-Parallel Cantilever Arrays
05:04

Author Spotlight: Introduction to Active Probe Atomic Force Microscopy with Quattro-Parallel Cantilever Arrays

Published on: June 13, 2023

2.2K
Spatial Separation of Molecular Conformers and Clusters
10:37

Spatial Separation of Molecular Conformers and Clusters

Published on: January 9, 2014

11.6K

Area of Science:

  • Educational Psychology
  • Behavior Analysis
  • Classroom Management

Background:

  • Group contingencies are effective behavior management strategies for multiple students.
  • Teachers face challenges selecting the most suitable group contingency due to similar efficacy.
  • Disruptive behavior in classrooms requires efficient and effective management techniques.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the effectiveness of three distinct group contingencies on disruptive behavior.
  • To assess student preferences for different group contingency procedures.
  • To evaluate the utility of a group-oriented concurrent-chains procedure for preference assessment.

Main Methods:

  • Compared three group contingencies with 13 typically developing eighth-grade students.
  • Measured reductions in disruptive behavior from baseline levels.
  • Utilized a group-oriented concurrent-chains procedure to determine individual student preferences.

Main Results:

  • All three group contingencies significantly reduced disruptive behavior compared to baseline.
  • A majority of students expressed a preference for one of the tested group contingencies.
  • The independent group contingency was the most preferred procedure among the students.

Conclusions:

  • Group contingencies are effective in reducing disruptive classroom behavior.
  • Individual preferences for behavior management strategies can be identified using the group-oriented concurrent-chains procedure.
  • This preference assessment method is efficient for classroom application.