Literature DB >> 23539242

Tangibles, Pictures, and Verbal Descriptions: Which Should Be Used in Choice Presentations?

C T Yu, Garry L Martin.   

Abstract

Little research has examined how stimulus modalities influence choice responding. Should choice alternatives be presented using tangibles, pictures, or verbal descriptions? How should caregivers decide which modality to use? We have completed several studies to examine how discrimination skills, as measured by the Assessment of Basic Learning Abilities test, interact with choice stimulus modalities to influence responding. Our results suggest that for persons with developmental disabilities with limited or no communication skills, the ability to make simple visual, visual matching to sample, and auditory-visual discriminations should be the prime determinant of stimulus modalities in choice presentation and preference assessment.

Entities:  

Year:  2003        PMID: 23539242      PMCID: PMC3608573     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Dev Disabl        ISSN: 1188-9136


  10 in total

1.  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

2.  On the relative reinforcing effects of choice and differential consequences.

Authors:  W W Fisher; R H Thompson; C C Piazza; K Crosland; D Gotjen
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1997

3.  A comprehensive evaluation of reinforcer identification processes for persons with profound multiple handicaps.

Authors:  C W Green; D H Reid; V S Canipe; S M Gardner
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1991

Review 4.  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

5.  Integrating caregiver report with systematic choice assessment to enhance reinforcer identification.

Authors:  W W Fisher; C C Piazza; L G Bowman; A Amari
Journal:  Am J Ment Retard       Date:  1996-07

6.  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

7.  Identifying reinforcers for persons with profound handicaps: staff opinion versus systematic assessment of preferences.

Authors:  C W Green; D H Reid; L K White; R C Halford; D P Brittain; S M Gardner
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1988

Review 8.  Quality of life in applied research: a review and analysis of empirical measures.

Authors:  C Hughes; B Hwang; J H Kim; L T Eisenman; D J Killian
Journal:  Am J Ment Retard       Date:  1995-05

9.  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.  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
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.