Comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers in teaching figure coloring to students with Down syndrome

Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities

Volumn 39, Issue 3, 2004, Pages 253-264

  Erbas, Dilek ^a   Ozen, Arzu ^a   Acar, Cimen ^a  

^a ANADOLU UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 7044249476     PISSN: 15470350     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Billingsley, F. F., White, O. R., & Munson, R. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and an example. Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229-241.
2. DeLeon, I. G., & Iwata, B. A. (1996). Evaluating of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 519-532.
3. Dunlap, G., DePerczel, M., Clarke, S., Wilson, S. W., White, R., & Gomez, A (1994). Choice making to promote adaptive behavior for students with emotional and behavioral challenges. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 505-518.
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. Green, C. W., Reid, D. H., Canipe, V. S., & Gardner, S. M. (1991). A comprehensive evaluation of reinforcer identification processes for persons with profound multiple handicaps. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 537-552.
6. Green, C. W., Reid, D. H., White, L. K., Halford, R. C., Brittain, D. P., & Gardner, S. M. (1988). Identifying reinforcers for persons with profound handicaps: Staff opinion versus systematic assessment of preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 31-43.
7. Eazdin, A. E. (1982). Single-case research design. New York: Oxford Press.
8. Hagopian, L. P., Rush, K S., Lewin, A. B., & Long, E. S. (2001). Evaluating the predictive validity of a single stimulus engagement preference assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 475-486.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
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. Witt, J. C., & Elliot, S. N. (1985). Acceptability of classroom management strategies. In T. R. Kratchowill (Ed.), Advances in school psychology (pp. 251-288). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.