Literature DB >> 22844134

Elimination of position-biased responding in individuals with autism and intellectual disabilities.

Jason C Bourret1, Brian A Iwata, Jill M Harper, Stephen T North.   

Abstract

Five individuals with autism or other developmental disabilities participated in paired-stimulus preference assessments during repeated baseline probes. All subjects initially showed a pronounced bias by typically selecting the stimulus placed in either the left or right position. Biased responding for 3 subjects was eliminated when training trials were conducted in which a stimulus of known lesser quality was presented as one of the choices. Reinforcer-quality training was unsuccessful for 2 subjects, as was a condition in which reinforcer magnitude was modified to favor unbiased responding. These subjects' biased responding was eliminated only when a correction procedure (repetition of error trials) was implemented.

Entities:  

Keywords:  directional bias; error correction; preference assessment; reinforcer magnitude; reinforcer quality; selection bias

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22844134      PMCID: PMC3405922          DOI: 10.1901/jaba.2012.45-241

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


  10 in total

Review 1.  The Picture Exchange Communication System.

Authors:  A Bondy; L Frost
Journal:  Behav Modif       Date:  2001-10

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.  Effects of reinforcer rate and reinforcer quality on time allocation: Extensions of matching theory to educational settings.

Authors:  N A Neef
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1992

4.  Empirical validation of a procedure to correct position and stimulus biases in matching-to-sample.

Authors:  Brian D Kangas; Marc N Branch
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 2.468

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.  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.  Modification of a response bias through differential amount of reinforcement.

Authors:  C Galloway
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1967-07       Impact factor: 2.468

8.  Impulsivity in students with serious emotional disturbance: the interactive effects of reinforcer rate, delay, and quality.

Authors:  N A Neef; F C Mace; D Shade
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1993

9.  Assessing influential dimensions of reinforcers on choice in students with serious emotional disturbance.

Authors:  N A Neef; D Shade; M S Miller
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1994

10.  Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals.

Authors:  G M Pace; M T Ivancic; G L Edwards; B A Iwata; T J Page
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1985
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.