Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis logoLink to Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
. 1998 Winter;31(4):605–620. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1998.31-605

Evaluation of a brief stimulus preference assessment.

H S Roane 1, T R Vollmer 1, J E Ringdahl 1, B A Marcus 1
PMCID: PMC1284151  PMID: 9891397

Abstract

We evaluated the utility of a brief (5-min) stimulus preference assessment for individuals with developmental disabilities. Participants had noncontingent (free) access to an array of stimuli and could interact with any of the stimuli at any time. Stimuli were never withdrawn or withheld from the participants during a 5-min session. In Experiment 1, the brief preference assessment was conducted for 10 participants to identify differentially preferred stimuli, and reinforcer assessments were conducted to test the reinforcing efficacy of those stimuli identified as highly preferred. In Experiment 2, a comparison was conducted between the brief preference assessment and a commonly used paired-stimulus preference assessment. Collectively, results demonstrated that the brief preference assessment identified stimuli that functioned as reinforcers for a simple operant response, identified preferred stimuli that were differentially effective as reinforcers compared to nonpreferred stimuli, was associated with fewer problem behaviors, and required less time to complete than a commonly used paired-stimulus preference assessment.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (177.0 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Clements C. B., McKee J. M. Programmed instruction for institutionalized offenders: contingency management and performance contracts. Psychol Rep. 1968 Jun;22(3):957–964. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1968.22.3.957. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. 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]
  3. DeLeon I. G., Iwata B. A. Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. J Appl Behav Anal. 1996 Winter;29(4):519–533. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-519. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Dyer K. The competition of autistic stereotyped behavior with usual and specially assessed reinforcers. Res Dev Disabil. 1987;8(4):607–626. doi: 10.1016/0891-4222(87)90056-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Egel A. L. Reinforcer variation: implications for motivating developmentally disabled children. J Appl Behav Anal. 1981 Fall;14(3):345–350. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1981.14-345. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Fischer S. M., Iwata B. A., Mazaleski J. L. Noncontingent delivery of arbitrary reinforcers as treatment for self-injurious behavior. J Appl Behav Anal. 1997 Summer;30(2):239–249. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1997.30-239. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. 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]
  8. 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]
  9. Hanley G. P., Piazza C. C., Fisher W. W. Noncontingent presentation of attention and alternative stimuli in the treatment of attention-maintained destructive behavior. J Appl Behav Anal. 1997 Summer;30(2):229–237. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1997.30-229. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Horner R. D., Keilitz I. Training mentally retarded adolescents to brush their teeth. J Appl Behav Anal. 1975 Fall;8(3):301–309. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1975.8-301. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Ivancic M. T., Bailey J. S. Current limits to reinforcer identification for some persons with profound multiple disabilities. Res Dev Disabil. 1996 Jan-Feb;17(1):77–92. doi: 10.1016/0891-4222(95)00038-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. 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]
  13. Mazaleski J. L., Iwata B. A., Vollmer T. R., Zarcone J. R., Smith R. G. Analysis of the reinforcement and extinction components in DRO contingencies with self-injury. J Appl Behav Anal. 1993 Summer;26(2):143–156. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1993.26-143. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1997.30-203. [DOI] [PMC free article] [Google Scholar]
  15. 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]
  16. 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]
  17. 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]
  18. Rotatori A. F., Fox B., Switzky H. An indirect technique for establishing preferences for categories of reinforcement for severely and profoundly retarded individuals. Percept Mot Skills. 1979 Jun;48(3 Pt 2):1307–1313. doi: 10.2466/pms.1979.48.3c.1307. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Vollmer T. R., Iwata B. A. Establishing operations and reinforcement effects. J Appl Behav Anal. 1991 Summer;24(2):279–291. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1991.24-279. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Vollmer T. R., Marcus B. A., LeBlanc L. Treatment of self-injury and hand mouthing following inconclusive functional analyses. J Appl Behav Anal. 1994 Summer;27(2):331–344. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1994.27-331. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. 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]

Articles from Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis are provided here courtesy of Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

RESOURCES