Examination of relative reinforcement effects of stimuli identified through pretreatment and daily brief preference assessments

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis

Volumn 34, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 463-473

  Deleon, Iser G ^b   Fisher, Wayne W ^a   Rodriguez Catter, Vanessa ^b   Maglieri, Kristen ^b   Herman, Kelly ^b   Marhefka, Jean Marie ^b  

^a Marcus Behavior Center   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Developmental disabilities; Preference assessment; Reinforcer assessment

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CHILD; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; DEVELOPMENTAL DISORDER; FEMALE; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTAL CONDITIONING; MALE; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REINFORCEMENT;

ADULT; CHILD; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; CONDITIONING, OPERANT; DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; REINFORCEMENT (PSYCHOLOGY); REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULE;

EID: 0035751747     PISSN: 00218855     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1901/jaba.2001.34-463     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Bowman, L. G., Piazza, C. C., Fisher, W. W., Hagopian, L. P., & Kogan, J. S. (1997). Assessment of preference for varied versus constant reinforcers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 451-458.
2. Catania, A. C., & Sagvolden, T. (1980). Preference for free choice over forced choice in pigeons. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 34, 77-86.
3. DeLeon, I. G., & Iwata, B. A. (1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 519-532.
4. Dyer, K. (1987). The competition of autistic stereotyped behavior with usual and specially assessed reinforcers. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 8, 607-626.
5. Egel, A. L. (1981). Reinforcer variation: Implications for motivating developmentally disabled children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 345-350.
6. Fisher, W. W., & Mazur, J. E. (1997). Basic and applied research on choice responding. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 387-410.
7. Fisher, W. W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., & Amari, A. (1996). Integrating caregiver report with a systematic choice assessment. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 101, 15-25.
8. Fisher, W. W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., Hagopian, L. P., Owens, J. C., & Slevin, I. (1992). A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 491-498.
9. Fisher, W. W., Thompson, R. H., Piazza, C. C., Crosland, K., & Gotjen, D. (1997). On the relative reinforcing effects of choice and differential consequences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 423-438.
10. Graff, R. B., & Libby, M. E. (1999). A comparison of presession and within-session reinforcement choice. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 161-173.
11. Kennedy, C. H., & Haring, T. G. (1993). Teaching choice making during social interactions to students with profound multiple disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 63-76.
12. Lohrmann-O'Rourke, S., & Browder, D. M. (1998). Empirically based methods to assess the preferences of individuals with severe disabilities. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 103, 146-161.
13. Mason, S. A., McGee, G. G., Farmer-Dougan, V., & Risley T. R. (1989). A practical strategy for ongoing reinforcer assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22, 171-179.
14. Matson, J. L., Bielecki, J., Mayville, E. A., Smalls, Y., Hamburg, J. W., & Baglio, C. S. (1999). The development of a reinforcer choice assessment scale for persons with severe and profound mental retardation. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 20, 379-384.
15. Pace, G. M., Ivancic, M. T., Edwards, G. L., Iwata, B. A., & Page, T. J. (1985). Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 249-255.
16. Roane, H. S., Vollmer, T. R., Ringdahl, J. E., & Marcus, B. A. (1998). Evaluation of a brief stimulus preference assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 605-620.
17. Roscoe, E. M., Iwata, B. A., & Kahng, S. (1999). Relative versus absolute reinforcement effects: Implications for preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 479-493.
18. Tustin, R. D. (1994). Preference for reinforcers under varying schedule arrangements: A behavioral economic analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 597-606.
19. Windsor, J., Piche, L. M., & Locke, P. A. (1994). Preference testing: A comparison of two presentation methods. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 15, 439-455.