Literature DB >> 23322931

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

Nathan A Call1, Nicole M Trosclair-Lasserre, Addie J Findley, Andrea R Reavis, M Alice Shillingsburg.   

Abstract

Research has suggested that a daily multiple-stimulus-without-replacement (MSWO) preference assessment may be more sensitive to changes in preference than other assessment formats, thereby resulting in greater correspondence with reinforcer efficacy over time (DeLeon et al., 2001). However, most prior studies have measured reinforcer efficacy using rate of responding under single-operant arrangements and dense schedules or under concurrent-operants arrangements. An alternative measure of reinforcer efficacy involves the evaluation of responding under progressive-ratio (PR) schedules. In the present study, 7 participants were given a single paired-stimulus (PS) preference assessment followed by daily MSWO preference assessments. After each daily MSWO, participants responded for each stimulus on a PR schedule. The correspondence between break points and preferences, as assessed by the 2 assessment formats, was examined. Results demonstrated that both preference assessments did equally well at predicting reinforcer efficacy, although the PS more consistently identified the most effective reinforcer.

Entities:  

Keywords:  multiple stimulus without replacement; paired stimulus; preference assessment; progressive ratio

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23322931      PMCID: PMC3545500          DOI: 10.1901/jaba.2012.45-763

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


  19 in total

Review 1.  Choice and preference assessment research with people with severe to profound developmental disabilities: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Helen I Cannella; Mark F O'Reilly; Giulio E Lancioni
Journal:  Res Dev Disabil       Date:  2005 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

3.  Some determinants of changes in preference over time.

Authors:  Gregory P Hanley; Brian A Iwata; Eileen M Roscoe
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2006

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.  Evaluation of a brief stimulus preference assessment.

Authors:  H S Roane; T R Vollmer; J E Ringdahl; B A Marcus
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1998

6.  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

7.  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

Review 8.  Basic and applied research on choice responding.

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

Review 9.  Preference assessment procedures for individuals with developmental disabilities.

Authors:  Louis P Hagopian; Ethan S Long; Karena S Rush
Journal:  Behav Modif       Date:  2004-09

10.  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
View more
  4 in total

1.  An Analysis of Feedback from a Behavior Analytic Perspective.

Authors:  Kathleen A Mangiapanello; Nancy S Hemmes
Journal:  Behav Anal       Date:  2015-01-14

Review 2.  Stimulus Preference Assessment Decision-Making System (SPADS): A Decision-Making Model for Practitioners.

Authors:  Jordan D Lill; Mark D Shriver; Keith D Allen
Journal:  Behav Anal Pract       Date:  2021-04-30

3.  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

4.  Children with Autism show Atypical Preference for Non-social Stimuli.

Authors:  Catherine M Gale; Svein Eikeseth; Lars Klintwall
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-07-17       Impact factor: 4.379

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.