Literature DB >> 11051576

A comparison of verbal and tangible stimulus preference assessments.

D Cohen-Almeida1, R B Graff, W H Ahearn.   

Abstract

Tangible preference assessments were compared with verbal preference assessments for 6 individuals with mental retardation, behavior disorders, or both. In the tangible assessment, items were placed in front of the participant. In the verbal assessment, participants were asked, "Do you want X or Y?" and the items were not present. The two assessments yielded similar high-preference items for 4 of the 6 participants. The verbal assessment was typically completed in less time than the tangible assessment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11051576      PMCID: PMC1284257          DOI: 10.1901/jaba.2000.33-329

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal        ISSN: 0021-8855


  5 in total

1.  A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities.

Authors:  W Fisher; C C Piazza; L G Bowman; L P Hagopian; J C Owens; I Slevin
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1992

2.  Using a choice assessment to predict reinforcer effectiveness.

Authors:  C C Piazza; W W Fisher; L P Hagopian; L G Bowman; L Toole
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1996

3.  "Would I be able to ... "? Teaching clients to assess the availability of their community living life style preferences.

Authors:  R M Foxx; G D Faw; S Taylor; P K Davis; R Fulia
Journal:  Am J Ment Retard       Date:  1993-09

4.  A preliminary comparison of reinforcer assessment methods for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Authors:  J Northup; K Jones; C Broussard; T George
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1995

5.  A comparison of reinforcer assessment methods: the utility of verbal and pictorial choice procedures.

Authors:  J Northup; T George; K Jones; C Broussard; T R Vollmer
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1996
  5 in total
  5 in total

1.  The effects of providing access to stimuli following choice making during vocal preference assessments.

Authors:  Jennifer L Tessing; Deborah A Napolitano; David B McAdam; Anthony DiCesare; Saul Axelrod
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2006

2.  Reinforcing efficacy of interactions with preferred and nonpreferred staff under progressive-ratio schedules.

Authors:  Jared Jerome; Peter Sturmey
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2008

3.  Evaluation of the multiple-stimulus without replacement preference assessment method using activities as stimuli.

Authors:  Edward J Daly; Nikki J Wells; Michelle S Swanger-Gagné; James E Carr; Gina M Kunz; Ashley M Taylor
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2009

4.  An evaluation of a brief multiple-stimulus preference assessment with adolescents with emotional-behavioral disorders in an educational setting.

Authors:  Nancy W Paramore; Thomas S Higbee
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2005

5.  Predicting the relative efficacy of verbal, pictorial, and tangible stimuli for assessing preferences of leisure activities.

Authors:  Cecile de Vries; C T Yu; Gina Sakko; Kirsten M Wirth; Kerri L Walters; Carole Marion; Garry L Martin
Journal:  Am J Ment Retard       Date:  2005-03
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.