Comparison of verbal preference assessments in the presence and absence of the actual stimuli

Research in Developmental Disabilities

Volumn 27, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 645-656

  Kuhn, David E ^a,b   DeLeon, Iser G ^a,b   Terlonge, Cindy ^c   Goysovich, Richard ^a  

^a KENNEDY KRIEGER INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Preference assessment; Reinforcer identification

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; HUMAN; MALE; PREDICTION; REINFORCEMENT; SCHOOL CHILD; STIMULUS; VERBAL BEHAVIOR; VERBALIZATION;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; CHILD; CHILD BEHAVIOR DISORDERS; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES; HUMANS; MALE; MOTIVATION; MUSIC; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PLAY AND PLAYTHINGS; REINFORCEMENT (PSYCHOLOGY); SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; VERBAL BEHAVIOR;

EID: 33749060811     PISSN: 08914222     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ridd.2005.08.001     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Cohen-Almeida D., Graff R.B., and Ahearn W.H. A comparison of verbal and tangible stimulus preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 33 (2000) 329-334
2. Conyers C., Doole A., Vause T., Harapiak S., Yu D.C.T., and Martin G.L. Predicting the relative efficacy of three presentation methods for assessing preferences of persons with developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 35 (2002) 49-58
3. DeLeon I.G., and Iwata B.A. Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 29 (1996) 519-533
4. DeLeon I.G., Iwata B.A., Conners J., and Wallace M.D. Examination of ambiguous stimulus preferences with duration-based measures. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 32 (1999) 111-114
5. DeLeon I.G., Iwata B.A., and Roscoe E.M. Displacement of leisure reinforcers by food during preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 30 (1997) 475-484
6. Dunn L.M., and Dunn L.M. Peabody picture vocabulary test-third edition: manual (1997), American Guidance Services, Circle Pines, MN
7. Fisher W., Piazza C.C., Bowman L.G., and Amari A. Integrating caregiver report with a systematic stimulus preference assessment. American Journal on Mental Retardation 101 (1996) 15-25
8. Fisher W.W., Piazza C.C., Bowman L.G., Hagopian L.P., Owens J.C., and Slevin I. A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 25 (1992) 491-498
9. Gardner M.F. Expressive one-word picture vocabulary test - 2000 (2000), Academic Therapy Publications, Novato, CA
10. Hagopian L.P., Rush K.S., Lewin A.B., and Long E.S. Evaluating the predictive validity of a single stimulus engagement preference assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 34 (2001) 475-485
11. Hanley G.P., Iwata B.A., and Lindberg J.S. Analysis of activity preferences as a function of differential consequences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 32 (1999) 419-435
12. Higbee T.S., Carr J.E., and Harrison C.D. The effects of pictorial versus tangible stimuli in stimulus-preference assessments. Research in Developmental Disabilities 20 (1999) 63-72
13. Hinkle D.E., Wiersma W., and Jurs S.G. Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences. 4th ed. (1998), Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA
14. Matson J.L., Bielecki J., Mayville E.A., Smalls Y., Bamburg J.W., and Baglio C.S. The development of a reinforcer choice assessment scale for persons with severe and profound mental retardation. Research in Developmental Disabilities 20 (1999) 379-384
15. Northup J., George T., Jones K., Broussard C., and Vollmer T.R. A comparison of reinforcer assessment methods: The utility of verbal and pictorial choice procedures. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 29 (1996) 201-212
16. Pace G.M., Ivancic M.T., Edwards G.L., Iwata B.A., and Page T.J. Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 18 (1985) 249-255
17. Piazza C.C., Fisher W.W., Hagopian L.P., Bowman L.G., and Toole L. Using a choice assessment to predict reinforcer effectiveness. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 29 (1996) 1-9
18. Roane H.S., Vollmer T.R., Ringdahl J.E., and Marcus B.A. Evaluation of a brief stimulus preference assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 31 (1998) 605-620
19. Taravella C.C., Lerman D.C., Contrucci S.A., and Roane H.S. Further evaluation of low-ranked items in stimulus-choice preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 33 (2000) 105-108
20. Wechsler D. Wechsler intelligence scale for children-III (1991), Psychological Corporation, San Antonio
21. Wilder D.A., Ellsworth C., White H., and Schock K. A comparison of stimulus preference assessment methods in adults with schizophrenia. Behavioral Interventions 18 (2003) 151-160
22. Wilder D.A., Wilson P., Ellsworth C., and Herring P.W. A comparison of verbal and tangible stimulus preference assessment methods in adults with schizophrenia. Behavioral Interventions 18 (2003) 191-198
23. Windsor J., Piche L.M., and Locke P.A. Preference testing: a comparison of two presentation methods. Research in Developmental Disabilities 15 (1994) 439-455