Brinch Donaldson (clutchpush0)

01-1.24) were independently associated with the risk of HE-associated symptoms. Because of increased handwashing during the COVID-19 outbreak, there is a significant increase in HE-associated symptoms in HCWs. Proper education and preventive strategies for HE are urgently needed for HCWs fighting on the front lines of COVID-19. Because of increased handwashing during the COVID-19 outbreak, there is a significant increase in HE-associated symptoms in HCWs. Proper education and preventive strategies for HE are urgently needed for HCWs fighting on the front lines of COVID-19.Eckard and Lattal (2020) summarized the behavioristic view of hypothetical constructs and theories, and then, in a novel and timely manner, applied this view to a critique of internal clock models of temporal control. In our three-part commentary, we aim to contribute to the authors' discussion by first expanding upon their view of the positive contributions afforded by constructs and theories. We then refine and question their view of the perils of reifying constructs and assigning them causal properties. Finally, we suggest to behavior analysts four rules of conduct for dealing with mediational theories tolerate constructs proposed with sufficient reason; consider them seriously, both empirically and conceptually; develop alternative, behavior-analytic models with overlapping empirical domains; and contrast the various models. Through variation and selection, behavioral science will evolve.Eckard and Lattal's Perspectives on Behavior Science, 43(1), 5-19 (2020) critique of internal clock (IC) mechanisms is based on narrow concepts of clocks, of their internality, of their mechanistic nature, and of scientific explanations in general. This reply broadens these concepts to characterize all timekeeping objects-physical and otherwise-as clocks, all intrinsic properties of such objects as internal to them, and all simulatable explanations of such properties as mechanisms. Eckard and Lattal's critique reflects a restrictive billiard-ball view of causation, in which environmental manipulations and behavioral effects are connected by a single chain of contiguous events. In contrast, this reply offers a more inclusive stochastic view of causation, in which environmental manipulations are probabilistically connected to behavioral effects. From either view of causation, computational ICs are hypothetical and unobservable, but their heuristic value and parsimony can only be appreciated from a stochastic view of causation. Billiard-ball and stochastic views have contrasting implications for potential explanations of interval timing. As illustrated by accounts of the variability in start times in fixed-interval schedules of reinforcement, of the two views of causality examined, only the stochastic account supports falsifiable predictions beyond simple replications. It is thus not surprising that the experimental analysis of behavior has progressively adopted a stochastic view of causation, and that it has reaped its benefits. This reply invites experimental behavior analysts to continue on that trajectory.The motivating operations concept has improved the precision of our approach to analyzing behavior; it serves as a framework for classifying events that alter the reinforcing and punishing effectiveness of other events. Nevertheless, some aspects of the concept are seriously flawed, thereby limiting its utility. We contend in this article that the emphasis it places on the onset of some stimuli (putative motivating operations) making their offset a reinforcer in the absence of a learning history (i.e., in the case of unconditioned motivating operations), or because of such a history (i.e., in the case of reflexive conditioned motivating operations), is of no value in predicting or controlling behavior. It is unfortunate that this pseudo-analysis has been widely accepted, which has drawn attention away from actual motivating operations that are relevan