Literature DB >> 8881340

Using a choice assessment to predict reinforcer effectiveness.

C C Piazza1, W W Fisher, L P Hagopian, L G Bowman, L Toole.   

Abstract

A choice assessment has been found to be a more accurate method of identifying preferences than is single-item presentation. However, it is not clear whether the effectiveness of reinforcement varies positively with the degree of preference (i.e., whether the relative preference based on the results of a choice assessment predicts relative reinforcer effectiveness). In the current study, we attempted to address this question by categorizing stimuli as high, middle, and low preference based on the results of a choice assessment, and then comparing the reinforcing effectiveness of these stimuli using a concurrent operants paradigm. High-preference stimuli consistently functioned as reinforcers for all 4 clients. Middle-preference stimuli functioned as reinforcers for 2 clients, but only when compared with low-preference stimuli. Low-preference stimuli did not function as reinforcers when compared to high- and middle-preference stimuli. These results suggest that a choice assessment can be used to predict the relative reinforcing value of various stimuli, which, in turn, may help to improve programs for clients with severe to profound disabilities.

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8881340      PMCID: PMC1279869          DOI: 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-1

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


  11 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 law of effect.

Authors:  R J Herrnstein
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1970-03       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  The substitutability of reinforcers.

Authors:  Leonard Green; Debra E Freed
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1993-07       Impact factor: 2.468

4.  Concurrent schedule assessment of food preference in cows.

Authors:  L R Matthews; W Temple
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1979-09       Impact factor: 2.468

5.  Some motivational properties of sensory stimulation in psychotic children.

Authors:  A Rincover; C D Newsom; O I Lovaas; R L Koegel
Journal:  J Exp Child Psychol       Date:  1977-10

6.  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

7.  Computerized assessment of preference for severely handicapped individuals.

Authors:  J Dattilo
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1986

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.  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.  Evaluation of reinforcer preferences for profoundly handicapped students.

Authors:  D P Wacker; W K Berg; B Wiggins; M Muldoon; J Cavanaugh
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1985
View more
  29 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Assessing reinforcers under progressive schedule requirements.

Authors:  H S Roane; D C Lerman; C M Vorndran
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2001

4.  Effects of reinforcement choice on task responding in individuals with developmental disabilities.

Authors:  D C Lerman; B A Iwata; B Rainville; J D Adelinis; K Crosland; J Kogan
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1997

5.  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

6.  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

7.  On the correspondence between preference assessment outcomes and progressive-ratio schedule assessments of stimulus value.

Authors:  Iser G DeLeon; Michelle A Frank; Meagan K Gregory; Melissa J Allman
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2009

8.  On the relative contributions of positive reinforcement and escape extinction in the treatment of food refusal.

Authors:  Cathleen C Piazza; Meeta R Patel; Charles S Gulotta; Bari M Sevin; Stacy A Layer
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2003

9.  Predicting Optimal Preference Assessment Methods for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities.

Authors:  Kendra M Thomson; Diana Czarnecki; Toby L Martin; C T Yu; Garry L Martin
Journal:  Educ Train Dev Disabil       Date:  2007-03

10.  Discrimination Skills Predict Effective Preference Assessment Methods for Adults with Developmental Disabilities.

Authors:  May S H Lee; Duong Nguyen; C T Yu; Jennifer R Thorsteinsson; Toby L Martin; Garry L Martin
Journal:  Educ Train Dev Disabil       Date:  2008-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.