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.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (206.0 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- 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]
- Mason S. A., McGee G. G., Farmer-Dougan V., Risley T. R. A practical strategy for ongoing reinforcer assessment. J Appl Behav Anal. 1989 Summer;22(2):171–179. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1989.22-171. [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]
- Paclawskyj T. R., Vollmer T. R. Reinforcer assessment for children with developmental disabilities and visual impairments. J Appl Behav Anal. 1995 Summer;28(2):219–224. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1995.28-219. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Piazza C. C., Fisher W. W., Hagopian L. P., Bowman L. G., Toole L. Using a choice assessment to predict reinforcer effectiveness. J Appl Behav Anal. 1996 Spring;29(1):1–9. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Smith R. G., Iwata B. A., Shore B. A. Effects of subject- versus experimenter-selected reinforcers on the behavior of individuals with profound developmental disabilities. J Appl Behav Anal. 1995 Spring;28(1):61–71. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1995.28-61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Windsor J., Piché L. M., Locke P. A. Preference testing: a comparison of two presentation methods. Res Dev Disabil. 1994 Nov-Dec;15(6):439–455. doi: 10.1016/0891-4222(94)90028-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]