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.
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- CATANIA A. C. Concurrent performances: a baseline for the study of reinforcement magnitude. J Exp Anal Behav. 1963 Apr;6:299–300. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1963.6-299. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Dattilo J. Computerized assessment of preference for severely handicapped individuals. J Appl Behav Anal. 1986 Winter;19(4):445–448. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1986.19-445. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fisher W., Piazza C. C., Bowman L. G., Hagopian L. P., Owens J. C., Slevin I. A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. J Appl Behav Anal. 1992 Summer;25(2):491–498. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1992.25-491. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Green C. W., Reid D. H., White L. K., Halford R. C., Brittain D. P., Gardner S. M. Identifying reinforcers for persons with profound handicaps: staff opinion versus systematic assessment of preferences. J Appl Behav Anal. 1988 Spring;21(1):31–43. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1988.21-31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Green Leonard, Freed Debra E. The substitutability of reinforcers. J Exp Anal Behav. 1993 Jul;60(1):141–158. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1993.60-141. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Herrnstein R. J. On the law of effect. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970 Mar;13(2):243–266. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1970.13-243. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Matthews L. R., Temple W. Concurrent schedule assessment of food preference in cows. J Exp Anal Behav. 1979 Sep;32(2):245–254. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1979.32-245. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Neef N. A., Mace F. C., Shade D. Impulsivity in students with serious emotional disturbance: the interactive effects of reinforcer rate, delay, and quality. J Appl Behav Anal. 1993 Spring;26(1):37–52. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1993.26-37. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Pace G. M., Ivancic M. T., Edwards G. L., Iwata B. A., Page T. J. Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals. J Appl Behav Anal. 1985 Fall;18(3):249–255. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1985.18-249. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Rincover A., Newsom C. D., Lovaas O. I., Koegel R. L. Some motivational properties of sensory stimulation in psychotic children. J Exp Child Psychol. 1977 Oct;24(2):312–323. doi: 10.1016/0022-0965(77)90009-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Wacker D. P., Berg W. K., Wiggins B., Muldoon M., Cavanaugh J. Evaluation of reinforcer preferences for profoundly handicapped students. J Appl Behav Anal. 1985 Summer;18(2):173–178. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1985.18-173. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]