Literature DB >> 8995834

Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences.

I G DeLeon1, B A Iwata.   

Abstract

We compared three methods for presenting stimuli during reinforcer-preference assessments: a paired-stimulus format (PS), a multiple-stimulus format in which selections were made with replacement (MSW), and a multiple-stimulus format in which selections were made without replacement (MSWO). Results obtained for 7 participants showed moderate to high rank-order correlations between the MSWO and PS procedures and a similar number of identified reinforcers. In addition, the time to administer the MSWO procedure was comparable to that required for the MSW method and less than half that required to administer the PS procedure. Subsequent tests of reinforcement effects revealed that some stimuli selected in the PS and MSWO procedures, but not selected in the MSW procedure, functioned as reinforcers for arbitrary responses. These preliminary results suggest that the multiple-stimulus procedure without replacement may share the respective advantages of the other methods.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8995834      PMCID: PMC1284008          DOI: 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-519

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


  8 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.  Reinforcer assessment for children with developmental disabilities and visual impairments.

Authors:  T R Paclawskyj; T R Vollmer
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1995

3.  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

4.  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

5.  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

6.  Effects of subject- versus experimenter-selected reinforcers on the behavior of individuals with profound developmental disabilities.

Authors:  R G Smith; B A Iwata; B A Shore
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1995

7.  Preference testing: a comparison of two presentation methods.

Authors:  J Windsor; L M Piché; P A Locke
Journal:  Res Dev Disabil       Date:  1994 Nov-Dec

8.  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 in total
  191 in total

1.  A comparison of presession and within-session reinforcement choice.

Authors:  R B Graff; M E Libby
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1999

2.  The effects of establishing operations on preference assessment outcomes.

Authors:  J M Gottschalk; M E Libby; R B Graff
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2000

3.  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

4.  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

5.  Examination of ambiguous stimulus preferences with duration-based measures.

Authors:  I G DeLeon; B A Iwata; J Conners; M D Wallace
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  1999

6.  Competition between noncontingent and contingent reinforcement schedules during response acquisition.

Authors:  H L Goh; B A Iwata; I G DeLeon
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2000

7.  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

8.  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

9.  Assessing reinforcers under progressive schedule requirements.

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

10.  An evaluation of evidence-based interventions to increase compliance among children with autism.

Authors:  Anthony T Fischetti; David A Wilder; Kristin Myers; Yanerys Leon-Enriquez; Stephanie Sinn; Rebecka Rodriguez
Journal:  J Appl Behav Anal       Date:  2012
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.