Literature DB >> 8682736

A comparison of reinforcer assessment methods: the utility of verbal and pictorial choice procedures.

J Northup1, T George, K Jones, C Broussard, T R Vollmer.   

Abstract

We compared three methods of stimulus preference assessment for verbal children and specifically evaluated the utility of a verbal choice procedure for assessing relative reinforcer value. Using a token system, relative preference for five categories of reinforcers, representing 15 different stimuli, was assessed by three methods: a reinforcer survey, a verbal stimulus-choice questionnaire, and a pictorial stimulus-choice procedure. Results showed that the verbal and pictorial stimulus-choice assessments accurately identified high- and low-preference categories for 3 of 4 participants. Survey results alone often rated multiple categories as high preference, were less likely to identify low-preference categories, and were less likely to correspond with the results of a reinforcer assessment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8682736      PMCID: PMC1279894          DOI: 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-201

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


  9 in total

1.  The utility of verbal and behavioral assessments of value.

Authors:  D J Bernstein; R L Michael
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1990-11       Impact factor: 2.468

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.  Developing correspondence between the non-verbal and verbal behavior of preschool children.

Authors:  T R Risley; B Hart
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1968

4.  Programming maintenance after correspondence training interventions with children.

Authors:  D C Guevremont; P G Osnes; T F Stokes
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1986

Review 5.  Social validity assessments: is current practice state of the art?

Authors:  I S Schwartz; D M Baer
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1991

6.  A practical strategy for ongoing reinforcer assessment.

Authors:  S A Mason; G G McGee; V Farmer-Dougan; T R Risley
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1989

7.  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

8.  Reinforcer variation: implications for motivating developmentally disabled children.

Authors:  A L Egel
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1981

9.  A preliminary comparison of reinforcer assessment methods for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Authors:  J Northup; K Jones; C Broussard; T George
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1995
  9 in total
  20 in total

1.  Analysis of activity preferences as a function of differential consequences.

Authors:  G P Hanley; B A Iwata; J S Lindberg
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1999

2.  The effects of presession exposure to attention on the results of assessments of attention as a reinforcer.

Authors:  W K Berg; S Peck; D P Wacker; J Harding; J McComas; D Richman; K Brown
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2000

3.  An analysis of choice making in the assessment of young children with severe behavior problems.

Authors:  J W Harding; D P Wacker; W K Berg; L J Cooper; J Asmus; K Mlela; J Muller
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1999

4.  Further evaluation of the accuracy of reinforcer surveys: a systematic replication.

Authors:  J Northup
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2000

5.  The effects of extinction, noncontingent reinforcement and differential reinforcement of other behavior as control procedures.

Authors:  Rachel H Thompson; Brian A Iwata; Gregory P Hanley; Claudia L Dozier; Andrew L Samaha
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2003

6.  Effects of task difficulty and type of contingency on students' allocation of responding to math worksheets.

Authors:  Amanda L Lannie; Brian K Martens
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2004

7.  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

8.  The effects of providing access to stimuli following choice making during vocal preference assessments.

Authors:  Jennifer L Tessing; Deborah A Napolitano; David B McAdam; Anthony DiCesare; Saul Axelrod
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2006

9.  Evaluation of the multiple-stimulus without replacement preference assessment method using activities as stimuli.

Authors:  Edward J Daly; Nikki J Wells; Michelle S Swanger-Gagné; James E Carr; Gina M Kunz; Ashley M Taylor
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2009

10.  Sequential evaluation of behavioral treatments and methylphenidate dosage for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Authors:  Veronica Gulley; John Northup; Steve Hupp; Sandi Spera; Jim LeVelle; Andrea Ridgway
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2003
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.