Literature DB >> 18595283

Evaluation of absolute and relative reinforcer value using progressive-ratio schedules.

Monica T Francisco1, John C Borrero, Jolene R Sy.   

Abstract

We evaluated behavior exhibited by individuals with developmental disabilities using progressive-ratio (PR) schedules. High- and low-preference stimuli were determined based on the results of a paired-stimulus preference assessment and were evaluated in subsequent reinforcer and PR assessments using concurrent and single schedules of presentation. In Experiment 1, results showed that for 2 of 3 participants, stimuli determined to be low-preference functioned as reinforcers when evaluated independent of high-preference stimuli. Further, the results from Experiment 2 showed that low-preference stimuli also functioned as reinforcers under gradually increasing PR requirements. Results suggest that for cases in which a high-preference stimulus is unavailable or impractical, the contingent delivery of relatively less preferred stimuli may maintain appropriate behavior, even as schedule requirements increase.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18595283      PMCID: PMC2408336          DOI: 10.1901/jaba.2008.41-189

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


  21 in total

Review 1.  Deconstructing relative reinforcing efficacy and situating the measures of pharmacological reinforcement with behavioral economics: a theoretical proposal.

Authors:  W K Bickel; L A Marsch; M E Carroll
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 4.530

2.  Effects of increment size and reinforcer volume on progressive ratio performance.

Authors:  W HODOS; G KALMAN
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1963-07       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  Comparing the reinforcing efficacy of nicotine containing and de-nicotinized cigarettes: a behavioral economic analysis.

Authors:  T A Shahan; W K Bickel; G J Madden; G J Badger
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 4.530

4.  A preliminary analysis of adaptive responding under open and closed economies.

Authors:  Henry S Roane; Nathan A Call; Terry S Falcomata
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2005

5.  Replacing relative reinforcing efficacy with behavioral economic demand curves.

Authors:  Matthew W Johnson; Warren K Bickel
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 2.468

6.  Tests of behavioral-economic assessments of relative reinforcer efficacy: economic substitutes.

Authors:  Gregory J Madden; John R Smethells; Eric E Ewan; Steven R Hursh
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 2.468

7.  Preference for reinforcers under progressive- and fixed-ratio schedules: a comparison of single and concurrent arrangements.

Authors:  Ashley C Glover; Henry S Roane; Heather J Kadey; Laura L Grow
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2008

8.  Effect of diazepam on performance of pigs in a progressive ratio schedule.

Authors:  R Dantzer
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  1976-07

Review 9.  Basic and applied research on choice responding.

Authors:  W W Fisher; J E Mazur
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1997

10.  Interaction of reinforcement schedules, a behavioral prosthesis, and work-related behavior in adults with mental retardation.

Authors:  Richard R Saunders; Julie E McEntee; Muriel D Saunders
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2005
View more
  10 in total

1.  Examination of the influence of contingency on changes in reinforcer value.

Authors:  Iser G DeLeon; Meagan K Gregory; Michelle A Frank-Crawford; Melissa J Allman; Arthur E Wilke; Abbey B Carreau-Webster; Mandy M Triggs
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2011

2.  Concurrent reinforcement schedules for problem behavior and appropriate behavior: experimental applications of the matching law.

Authors:  Carrie S W Borrero; Timothy R Vollmer; John C Borrero; Jason C Bourret; Kimberly N Sloman; Andrew L Samaha; Jesse Dallery
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 2.468

Review 3.  On the applied use of progressive-ratio schedules of reinforcement.

Authors:  Henry S Roane
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2008

4.  The effects of varied versus constant high-, medium-, and low-preference stimuli on performance.

Authors:  Byron Wine; David A Wilder
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2009

5.  On the correspondence between preference assessment outcomes and progressive-ratio schedule assessments of stimulus value.

Authors:  Iser G DeLeon; Michelle A Frank; Meagan K Gregory; Melissa J Allman
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2009

6.  Consumption and response output as a function of unit price: manipulation of cost and benefit components.

Authors:  Xeres Delmendo; John C Borrero; Kenneth L Beauchamp; Monica T Francisco
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2009

7.  Correspondence between single versus daily preference assessment outcomes and reinforcer efficacy under progressive-ratio schedules.

Authors:  Nathan A Call; Nicole M Trosclair-Lasserre; Addie J Findley; Andrea R Reavis; M Alice Shillingsburg
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2012

8.  The Role of Context in the Evaluation of Reinforcer Efficacy: Implications for the Preference Assessment Outcomes.

Authors:  Aphrodite Mangum; Henry Roane; Laura Fredrick; Robert Pabico
Journal:  Res Autism Spectr Disord       Date:  2012-01

9.  Evaluating preference assessments for use in the general education population.

Authors:  Jennifer L Resetar; George H Noell
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2008

10.  Examining the reinforcing value of stimuli within social and non-social contexts in children with and without high-functioning autism.

Authors:  Melissa C Goldberg; Melissa J Allman; Louis P Hagopian; Mandy M Triggs; Michelle A Frank-Crawford; Stewart H Mostofsky; Martha B Denckla; Iser G DeLeon
Journal:  Autism       Date:  2016-07-01
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.