Literature DB >> 20190936

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

Iser G DeLeon1, Michelle A Frank, Meagan K Gregory, Melissa J Allman.   

Abstract

The current study examined whether stimuli of different preference levels would be associated with different amounts of work maintained by the stimuli, as determined through progressive-ratio schedule break points. Using a paired-choice preference assessment, stimuli were classified as high, moderate, or low preference for 4 individuals with developmental disabilities. The stimuli were then tested three times each using a progressive-ratio schedule (step size of 1; the break-point criterion was 1 min). In 10 of 12 possible comparisons, higher preference stimuli produced larger break points than did lower preference stimuli.

Entities:  

Keywords:  progressive-ratio schedules; reinforcer assessment; stimulus preference

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 20190936      PMCID: PMC2741077          DOI: 10.1901/jaba.2009.42-729

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


  7 in total

1.  Progressive ratio as a measure of reward strength.

Authors:  W HODOS
Journal:  Science       Date:  1961-09-29       Impact factor: 47.728

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

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

Authors:  Monica T Francisco; John C Borrero; Jolene R Sy
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2008

4.  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

5.  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

6.  Relative versus absolute reinforcement effects: implications for preference assessments.

Authors:  E M Roscoe; B A Iwata; S Kahng
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1999

7.  Assessing potency of high- and low-preference reinforcers with respect to response rate and response patterns.

Authors:  Becky Penrod; Michele D Wallace; Edwin J Dyer
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2008
  7 in total
  6 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.  On the relation between reinforcer efficacy and preference.

Authors:  May S H Lee; C T Yu; Toby L Martin; Garry L Martin
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2010-03

3.  The Impact of Stimulus Presentation and Size on Preference.

Authors:  James W Moore; Keith C Radley; Evan H Dart; Heather M Whipple; Emily J Ness; Ashley N Murphy; Chris Furlow; Joy K Wimberly; Ashley Smith
Journal:  Behav Anal Pract       Date:  2016-09-21

4.  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

5.  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

6.  Systematic assessment of food item preference and reinforcer effectiveness: Enhancements in training laboratory-housed rhesus macaques.

Authors:  Allison L Martin; Andrea N Franklin; Jaine E Perlman; Mollie A Bloomsmith
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2018-07-09       Impact factor: 1.777

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.