The effects of providing access to stimuli following choice making during vocal preference assessments

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis

Volumn 39, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 501-506

  Tessing, Jennifer L ^a   Napolitano, Deborah A ^b,e   McAdam, David B ^b   DiCesare, Anthony ^c   Axelrod, Saul ^d  

^a Advoserv ^*  (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER   (United States)

^c OUR LADY OF LOURDES MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d TEMPLE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND DENTISTRY   (United States)

Author keywords

Choice; Developmental disabilities; Preference assessments; Reinforcer assessments

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ARTICLE; CHILD; DECISION MAKING; EDUCATION; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTAL CONDITIONING; MALE; MENTAL PATIENT; MOTIVATION; PROBLEM SOLVING; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; REINFORCEMENT; VERBAL BEHAVIOR;

ADOLESCENT; CHILD; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; CONDITIONING, OPERANT; EDUCATION OF MENTALLY RETARDED; HUMANS; MALE; MENTALLY DISABLED PERSONS; MOTIVATION; PROBLEM SOLVING; TOKEN ECONOMY; VERBAL BEHAVIOR;

EID: 33947215709     PISSN: 00218855     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1901/jaba.2006.56-05     Document Type: Article

References (8)

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. DeLeon, I. G., Fisher, W. W., Rodriguez-Catter, V., Maglieri, K., Herman, K., & Marhefka, J. (2001). Examination of relative reinforcement effects of stimuli identified through pretreatment and daily brief preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 463-473.
3. Fisher, 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.
4. Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & Lindberg, J. S. (1999). Analysis of activity preferences as a function of differential consequences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 419-435.
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. Hoch, H., McComas, J. J., Johnson, L., Faranda, N., & Guenther, S. L. (2002). The effects of magnitude and quality of reinforcement on choice responding during play activities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 171-181.
7. 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.
8. 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.