Assessing potency of high- and low-preference reinforcers with respect to response rate and response patterns

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis

Volumn 41, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 177-188

  Penrod, Becky ^a   Wallace, Michele D ^a,b   Dyer, Edwin J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

^b CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Positive reinforcement; Preference assessments; Progressive ratio; Response effort

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ASPERGER SYNDROME; ATTENTION DEFICIT DISORDER; AUTISM; BEHAVIOR THERAPY; CHILD; COLOR VISION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DECISION MAKING; EARLY CHILDHOOD INTERVENTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PRESCHOOL CHILD; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REINFORCEMENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ASPERGER SYNDROME; ATTENTION DEFICIT DISORDER WITH HYPERACTIVITY; AUTISTIC DISORDER; BEHAVIOR THERAPY; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COLOR PERCEPTION; EARLY INTERVENTION (EDUCATION); FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULE; TOKEN ECONOMY; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 46049097946     PISSN: 00218855     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1901/jaba.2008.41-177     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Cannella, H. I., O'Reilly, M. F., & Lancioni, G. E. (2005). Choice and preference assessment research with people with severe to profound developmental disabilities: A review of the literature. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 26, 1-15.
2. 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.
3. DeLeon, I. G., Iwata, B. A., Goh, H. L., & 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.
4. 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.
5. Hodos, W. (1961). Progressive ratio as a measure of reward strength. Science, 134, 943-944.
6. 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.
7. Piazza, C. C., Fisher, W. W., Hagopian, L. P., Bowman, L. G., & Toole, L. (1996). Using a choice assessment to predict reinforcer effectiveness. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 1-9.
8. Roane, H. S., Lerman, D. C., & Vorndran, C. M. (2001). Assessing reinforcers under progressive schedule requirements. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 145-167.
9. 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.
10. Roscoe, E. M., Iwata, B. A., & Kahng, S. W. (1999). Relative versus absolute reinforcement effects: Implications for preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 479-493.
11. Tustin, R. D. (1994). Preference for reinforcers under varying schedule arrangements: A behavioral economic analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 597-606.
12. Windsor, J., Piche, L. M., & Locke, P. A. (1994). Preference testing: A comparison of two presentation methods. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 15, 439-455.
13. Zhou, L., Goff, G. A., & Iwata, B. A. (2000). Effects of increased response effort on self-injury and object manipulation as competing responses. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 29-40.