Determining individual preschoolers' preferences INA group arrangement

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis

Volumn 41, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 25-37

  Layer, Stacy A ^a   Hanley, Gregory P ^a,b   Heal, Nicole A ^a   Tiger, Jeffrey H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS   (United States)

^b WESTERN NEW ENGLAND UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Concurrent chains arrangements; Delay; Preference assessments; Preschool children; Probabilistic outcomes

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR THERAPY; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; FOOD PREFERENCE; GROUP PROCESS; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MOTIVATION; PRESCHOOL CHILD; REINFORCEMENT;

BEHAVIOR THERAPY; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; FOOD PREFERENCES; GROUP PROCESSES; HUMANS; MALE; MOTIVATION; REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULE;

EID: 42349094243     PISSN: 00218855     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1901/jaba.2008.41-25     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. 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.
2. Cicchetti, D. V., & Sparrow, S. A. (1981). Developing criteria for establishing interrater reliability of specific items: Applications to assessment of adaptive behavior. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 86, 127-137.
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. DeLeon, I. G., Iwata, B. A., Goh, H., & Worsdell, A. S. (1997). Emergence of reinforcer preference as a function of schedule requirements and stimulus similarity. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 439-449.
5. 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.
6. Hains, A. H., & Baer, D. M. (1989). Interaction effects in multielement designs: Inevitable, desirable, and ignorable. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22, 57-69.
7. 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.
8. Hanley, G. P., Piazza, C. C., Fisher, W. W., Contrucci, S. A., & Maglieri, K. A. (1997). Evaluation of client preference for function-based treatment packages. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 459-473.
9. Hanley, G. P., Piazza, C. C., Fisher, W. W., & Maglieri, K. A. (2005). On the effectiveness of and preference for punishment and extinction components of function-based interventions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38, 51-65.
10. Heal, N. A., & Hanley, G. P. (2007). Evaluation of preschool children's preferences for motivational systems during instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 249-261.
11. Heal, N. A., Hanley, G. P., Sc Layer, S. A. (2006). Efficacy and acceptability of three teaching strategies that differ in amount of teacher directedness. Unpublished manuscript.
12. Lohrmann-O'Rourke, S., Browder, D. M., & Brown, F. (2000). Guidelines for conducting socially valid systematic preference assessments. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 25, 42-53.
13. Madden, G. J., Smethells, J. R., Ewan, E. E., & Hursh, S. R. (in press). Tests of behavioral-economic assessments of relative reinforcer efficacy: 1. Economic substitutes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior.
14. 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.
15. Risley, T. (1996). Get a life! Positive behavioral intervention for challenging behavior through life arrangement and life coaching. In L. K. Koegel, R. L. Koegel, & G. Dunlap (Eds.), Positive behavioral support: Including people with difficult behavior in the community (pp. 425-437). Baltimore: Brookes.
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. Tiger, J. H., Hanley, G. P., & Heal, N. A. (2006). The effectiveness of and preschoolers' preferences for variations of multiple-schedule arrangements. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39, 475-488.
18. Tiger, J. H., Hanley, G. P., & Hernandez, E. (2006). An evaluation of the value of choice with preschool children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39, 1-16.
19. Tustin, R. D. (1994). Preference for reinforcers under varying schedule arrangements: A behavioral economics analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 597-606.
20. Windsor, J., Piche, L. M., & Locke, P. A. (1994). Preference testing: A comparison of two presentation methods. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 15, 439-455.