Evaluating pictorial preference assessment: The effect of differential outcomes on preference assessment results

Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 113-128

  Groskreutz, Mark P ^a   Graff, Richard B ^a,b  

^a NEW ENGLAND CENTER FOR CHILDREN   (United States)

^b NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Pictorial preference assessment; Preference assessment; Reinforcer assessment

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADOLESCENT; AGGRESSION; ANGER; ARTICLE; AUTISM; AUTOMUTILATION; BEHAVIOR DISORDER; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DANDY WALKER SYNDROME; DEVELOPMENTAL DISORDER; HUMAN; MALE; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; PERSEVERATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REINFORCEMENT; SIGN LANGUAGE; STIMULUS RESPONSE; VERBAL COMMUNICATION;

EID: 56449087223     PISSN: 17509467     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.rasd.2008.04.007     Document Type: Article

References (12)

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. 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 reinforers for persons with sever and profound disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 25 (1992) 491-498
5. Graff R.B., and Gibson L. Using pictures to assess reinforcers in individuals with developmental disabilities. Behavior Modifications 27 4 (2003) 470-483
6. Graff R.B., Gibson L., and Galiatsatos G.T. The impact of high- and low-preference stimuli on vocational and academic performances of youths with severe disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 39 (2006) 131-135
7. 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
8. 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 1 (1999) 63-72
9. Northup J., George T., Jones K., Broussard C., and Vollmer T. A comparison of reinforcer assessment methods: the utility of verbal and pictorial choice procedures. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 29 (1996) 201-212
10. Northup J., Jones K., Broussard C., and George T. A preliminary comparison of reinforcer assessment methods with ADHD children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 28 (1996) 99-100
11. 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
12. Tessing J.L., Napolitano D.A., McAdam D.B., DiCesare A., and Axelrod S. The effects of providing access to stimuli following choice making during vocal preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 39 (2006) 501-506