A comparison between traditional economical and demand curve analyses of relative reinforcer efficacy in the validation of preference assessment predictions

Developmental Neurorehabilitation

Volumn 12, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 164-169

  Reed, Derek D ^a   Luiselli, James K ^a   Magnuson, Jennifer D ^a   Fillers, Stefanie ^a   Vieira, Shawn ^a   Rue, Hanna C ^a  

^a MAY INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Behavioral economics; Demand curve; Perference assessment; Progressive ratio; Reinforcer assessment

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CASE REPORT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DATA ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; HUMAN; MALE; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REINFORCEMENT; STIMULUS; VALIDATION STUDY; AUTISM; DECISION MAKING; METHODOLOGY; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TEST; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE;

AUTISTIC DISORDER; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; MALE; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REINFORCEMENT (PSYCHOLOGY); VALIDATION STUDIES AS TOPIC; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 70349232627     PISSN: 17518423     EISSN: 17518431     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/17518420902858983     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Matson JL, Laud RB, Matson ML. Behavior modification for persons with developmental disabilities: Treatments and supports. Kingston, NY: NADD; 2004.
2. Cooper JO, Heron TE, Heward WL. Applied behavior analysis. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.; 2007.
3. Hagopian LP, Rush KS, Lewin AB, Long ES. Evaluating the predictive validity of a single stimulus engagement preference assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 2001;34:475-485.
4. Piazza CC, Fisher WW, Hagopian LP, Bowman LG, Toole L. Using a choice assessment to predict reinforcer effectiveness. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 1996; 29:1-9.
5. Fisher W, Piazza CC, Bowman LG, Hagopian LP, Owens JC, Slevin I. A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 1992;25:491-498.
6. Roane HS. On the applied use of progressive-ratio schedules of reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 2008;41:155-161.
7. Johnson MW, Bickel WK. Replacing relative reinforcing efficacy with behavioral economic demand curves. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 2006;85:73-93.
8. Hursh SR. Economic concepts for the analysis of behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 1980;34: 219-238.
9. Hursh SR, Raslear TG, Bauman R, Black H. The quantitative analysis of economic behavior with laboratory animals. In: Grunert KG, Ö lander F, editors. Understanding economic behaviour. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers; 1989. pp 393-407.
10. DeLeon IG, Frank MA, Gregory MK, Allman MJ. On the correspondence between preference assessment outcomes and progressive-ratio schedule assessments of stimulus value. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (In press).
11. Penrod B, Wallace MD, Dyer EJ. Assessing potency of highand low-preference reinforcers with respect to response rate and response patterns. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 2008;41:177-188.
12. Glover AC, Roane HS, Kadey HJ, Grow LL. Preference for reinforcers under progressive- and fixed-ratio schedules: A comparison of single and concurrent arrangement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 2008;41:163-176.
13. Francisco MT, Borrero JC, Sy JR. Evaluation of absolute and relative reinforcer values using progressive-ratio schedules. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 2008; 41:189-202.
14. Roane HS, Lerman DC, Vorndran CM. Assessing reinforcers under progressive schedule requirements. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 2001;34:145-167.
15. Ciccone FJ, Graff RB, Ahearn WH. Stimulus preference assessments and the utility of a moderate category. Behavioral Interventions 2006;21:59-63.
16. Hagopian LP, Long ES, Rush KS. Preference assessment procedures for individuals with developmental disabilities. Behavior Modification 2004;28:668-677.
17. DeLeon IG, Iwata BA. Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer p. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 1996;29:519-532.
18. Roane HS, Vollmer TR, Ringdahl JE, Marcus BA. Evaluation of a brief stimulus preference assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 1998;31:605-620.
19. Hursh SR, Raslear TG, Shurtleff D, Bauman R, Simmons L. A cost-benefit analysis of demand for food. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 1988; 50:419-440.
20. Madden GJ, Smethells JR, Ewan EE, Hursh SR. Tests of behavioral-economic assessments of relative reinforcer efficacy: Economic substitutes. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 2007;87:219-240.
21. Madden GJ, Smethells JR, Ewan EE, Hursh SR. Tests of behavioral-economic assessments of relative reinforcer efficacy II: Economic complements. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior 2007;88:355-367.