Literature DB >> 8827248

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

W W Fisher1, C C Piazza, L G Bowman, A Amari.   

Abstract

To determine client preferences, we asked caregivers to rank-order, according to predicted client preference, a standard list of items and a list generated using a structured interview for caregivers, the Reinforcer Assessment for Individuals with Severe Disabilities. Systematic choice assessments were then conducted with both sets of stimuli. A concurrent operants paradigm was used to compare the reinforcing effects of the highest preference stimulus identified from each list. Results indicated that caregiver predictions of client preferences were slightly better for the set of stimuli they generated than for the standard set, and the choice assessment identified more potent reinforcers from the set of stimuli generated by the caregivers than from the standard set.

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8827248

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Ment Retard        ISSN: 0895-8017


  66 in total

Review 1.  An evaluation of the effects of matched stimuli on behaviors maintained by automatic reinforcement.

Authors:  C C Piazza; J D Adelinis; G P Hanley; H L Goh; M D Delia
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2000

2.  The effects of noncontingent delivery of high- and low-preference stimuli on attention-maintained destructive behavior.

Authors:  W W Fisher; J T O'Connor; P F Kurtz; I G DeLeon; D L Gotjen
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2000

3.  Evaluating the predictive validity of a single stimulus engagement preference assessment.

Authors:  L P Hagopian; K S Rush; A B Lewin; E S Long
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2001

4.  Examination of relative reinforcement effects of stimuli identified through pretreatment and daily brief preference assessments.

Authors:  I G DeLeon; W W Fisher; V Rodriguez-Catter; K Maglieri; K Herman; J M Marhefka
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2001

5.  Treatment of multiply controlled destructive behavior with food reinforcement.

Authors:  J D Adelinis; C C Piazza; H L Goh
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2001

6.  Response-restriction analysis: II. Alteration of activity preferences.

Authors:  Gregory P Hanley; Brian A Iwata; Eileen M Roscoe; Rachel H Thompson; Jana S Lindberg
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2003

7.  Progressing from programmatic to discovery research: a case example with the overjustification effect.

Authors:  Henry S Roane; Wayne W Fisher; Erin M McDonough
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2003

8.  Response-restriction analysis: I. Assessment of activity preferences.

Authors:  Gregory P Hanley; Brian A Iwata; Jana S Lindberg; Juliet Conners
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2003

9.  Varying response effort in the treatment of pica maintained by automatic reinforcement.

Authors:  Cathleen C Piazza; Henry S Roane; Kris M Keeney; Bobbi R Boney; Kimberly A Abt
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2002

10.  An approach to identifying the conditions under which response interruption will reduce automatically reinforced problem behavior.

Authors:  Megan L Kliebert; Jeffrey H Tiger; Karen A Toussaint
Journal:  Behav Anal Pract       Date:  2011
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.