Literature DB >> 15762824

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

Cecile de Vries1, C T Yu, Gina Sakko, Kirsten M Wirth, Kerri L Walters, Carole Marion, Garry L Martin.   

Abstract

We measured the relationships between choice stimulus modalities and three basic discriminations (visual, visual matching-to-sample, and auditory-visual) using the Assessment of Basic Learning Abilities test. Participants were 9 adults who had moderate to profound developmental disabilities. Their most and least preferred leisure activities, identified by prior preference assessments, were presented using choice stimuli in three modalities (tangibles, pictures, and verbal descriptions) in an alternating-treatments design. For 8 of the 9 participants, discrimination skills predicted the selections of choice stimuli associated with their preferred activities. The results suggest that choice stimulus modalities in preference assessment of leisure activities need to be matched to the discrimination skills of persons with developmental disabilities.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15762824      PMCID: PMC3567192          DOI: 10.1352/0895-8017(2005)110<145:PTREOV>2.0.CO;2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Ment Retard        ISSN: 0895-8017


  11 in total

1.  Further evaluation of the multiple-stimulus preference assessment.

Authors:  T S Higbee; J E Carr; C D Harrison
Journal:  Res Dev Disabil       Date:  2000 Jan-Feb

2.  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

Review 3.  Empirically based methods to assess the preferences of individuals with severe disabilities.

Authors:  S Lohrmann-O'Rourke; D M Browder
Journal:  Am J Ment Retard       Date:  1998-09

4.  The effects of pictorial versus tangible stimuli in stimulus-preference assessments.

Authors:  T S Higbee; J E Carr; C D Harrison
Journal:  Res Dev Disabil       Date:  1999 Jan-Feb

5.  Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences.

Authors:  I G DeLeon; B A Iwata
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1996

6.  Preference testing: a comparison of two presentation methods.

Authors:  J Windsor; L M Piché; P A Locke
Journal:  Res Dev Disabil       Date:  1994 Nov-Dec

7.  A comparison of verbal and tangible stimulus preference assessments.

Authors:  D Cohen-Almeida; R B Graff; W H Ahearn
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2000

8.  Predicting the relative efficacy of three presentation methods for assessing preferences of persons with developmental disabilities.

Authors:  Carole Conyers; Adrienne Doole; Tricia Vause; Shayla Harapiak; Dickie C T Yu; Garry L Martin
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2002

9.  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

10.  Two new empirically derived reasons to use the assessment of basic learning abilities.

Authors:  David F Richards; W Larry Williams; William C Follette
Journal:  Am J Ment Retard       Date:  2002-09
View more
  3 in total

1.  On Choice, Preference, and Preference for Choice.

Authors:  Toby L Martin; C T Yu; Garry L Martin; Daniela Fazzio
Journal:  Behav Anal Today       Date:  2006

2.  Teaching Object-Picture Matching to Improve Concordance between Object and Picture Preferences for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities: Pilot Study.

Authors:  Duong Minh Nguyen; C T Yu; Toby L Martin; Pamela Fregeau; Cheryl Pogorzelec; Garry L Martin
Journal:  J Dev Disabl       Date:  2009

3.  Discrimination Skills Predict Effective Preference Assessment Methods for Adults with Developmental Disabilities.

Authors:  May S H Lee; Duong Nguyen; C T Yu; Jennifer R Thorsteinsson; Toby L Martin; Garry L Martin
Journal:  Educ Train Dev Disabil       Date:  2008-09
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.