Predicting the relative efficacy of verbal, pictorial, and tangible stimuli for assessing preferences of leisure activities

American Journal on Mental Retardation

Volumn 110, Issue 2, 2005, Pages

  De Vries, Cecile ^a   Yu, C T ^a,b   Sakko, Gina ^a   Wirth, Kirsten M ^a   Walters, Kerri L ^a   Marion, Carole ^a   Martin, Garry L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANITOBA   (Canada)

^b St Amant Centre   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUDITORY DISCRIMINATION; CLINICAL ARTICLE; DEVELOPMENTAL DISORDER; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; FEMALE; HUMAN; LEARNING; LEISURE; MALE; VERBALIZATION; VISUAL DISCRIMINATION;

ADULT; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; HUMANS; LEISURE ACTIVITIES; MALE; MENTAL RETARDATION; MIDDLE AGED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; VERBAL BEHAVIOR; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 15444375211     PISSN: 08958017     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1352/0895-8017(2005)110<145:PTREOV>2.0.CO;2     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Cohen-Almeida, D., Graff, R. B., & Ahearn, W. H. (2000). A comparison of verbal and tangible stimulus preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 329-334.
2. Conyers, C., Doole, A., Vause, T., Harapiak, S., Yu, C. T., & Martin, G. L. (2002). Predicting the relative efficiency of the three presentation methods for assessing performances of persons with developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 49-58.
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, 519-533.
4. Fisher, W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., Hagopian, L. P., Owens, J. S., & Slevin, I. (1992). A comprehension of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 491-498.
5. Higbee, T. S., Carr, J. E., & Harrison, C. D. (1999). The effects of pictorial versus tangible stimuli in stimulus-preference assessments. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 20, 63-72.
6. Higbee, T. S., Carr, J. E., & Harrison, C. D. (2000). Further evaluation of the multiple-stimulus preference assessment. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 21, 61-73.
7. Hughes, C., Pitkin, S. E., & Lorden, S. W. (1998). Assessing preferences and choices of persons with severe and profound mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33, 299-316.
8. Logan, K. R., & Gast, D. L. (2001). Conducting preference assessments and reinforcer testing for individuals with profound multiple disabilities: Issues and procedures. Exceptionality, 9, 123-134.
9. 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.
10. Marion, C., Vause, T., Harapiak, S., Martin, G. L., Yu, C. T., Sakko, G., & Walters, K. (2003). The hierarchical relationship between several visual and auditory discriminations and three verbal operants among individuals with developmental disabilities. Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 19, 91-105.
11. Martin, G. L., & Pear, P. (2003). Behaviour modification: What it is and how to do it (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
12. Martin, G. L., & Yu, C. T. (2000). Overview of research on the Assessment of Basic Learning Abilities test [Special Issue]. Journal on Developmental Disabilities, 7(2), 10-36.
13. Northup, J., George, T., Jones, K., Broussard, C., & Vollmer, T. R. (1996). A comparison of reinforcer assessment methods: The utility of verbal and pictorial choice procedures. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 201-212.
14. Richards, D. F., Williams, W. L., & Follette, W. C. (2002). Two new empirically derived reasons to use the Assessment of Basic Learning Abilities. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 107, 329-339.
15. Schwartzman, L., Yu, C. T., & Martin, G. L. (2003). Choice responding as a function of choice presentation method and level of preference in persons with developmental disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Community, and Rehabilitation, 7(3), Article 3. Retrieved March 15, 2003, from http://www.ijdcr.ca/VOL01_03_ CAN/articles/schwartzman.shtml
16. Windsor, J., Piché, L. M., & Locke, P. A. (1994). Preference testing: A comparison of two presentation methods. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 15, 439-455.