Evaluation of the multiple-stimulus without replacement preference assessment method using activities as stimuli

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis

Volumn 42, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 563-574

  Daly III, Edward J ^a   Wells, Nikki J ^a   Swanger Gagné, Michelle S ^a   Carr, James E ^b   Kunz, Gina M ^a   Taylor, Ashley M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

^b WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Math problem completion; Preference assessment; Preferences; Reinforcer

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR DISORDER; CHILD; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MATHEMATICS; MOTIVATION; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; PROBLEM SOLVING; REINFORCEMENT;

CHILD; CHILD BEHAVIOR DISORDERS; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MATHEMATICS; MOTIVATION; PROBLEM SOLVING; REINFORCEMENT (PSYCHOLOGY); REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULE;

EID: 77952530267     PISSN: 00218855     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1901/jaba.2009.42-563     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Anderson, J. A., Kutash, K., & Duchnowski, A. J. (2001). A comparison of the academic progress of students with EBD and students with LD. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorder, 9, 106-115.
2. Carr, J. E., Nicolson, A. C., & Higbee, T. S. (2000). Evaluation of a brief multiple-stimulus preference assessment in a naturalistic context. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 353-357.
3. Cohen-Almeida, D., Graff, R. B., & Ahearn, W. H. (2000). A comparison of verbal and tangible stimulus preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 329-334.
4. Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
5. 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.
6. Fisher, W., Piazza, C, C., Bowman, L. G., Hagopian, L. P., Owens, J. C., & Slevin, I. (1992). A comparison of two approaches for identifying remforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 491-498.
7. Fisher, W. W., Thompson, R. H., Piazza, C. C., Crosland, K., & Gotjen, D. (1997). On the relative reinforcing effects of choice and differential consequences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 423-438.
8. Freeland, J. T., & Noell, G. H. (2002). Programming for maintenance: An investigation of delayed intermittent reinforcement and common stimuli to create indis-criminable contingencies. Journal of Behavioral Education, 11, 5-18.
9. Higbee, T. S., Carr, J. E., & Harrison, C. D. (2000). Further evaluation of the multiple-stimulus preference assessment. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 21, 61-73.
10. Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York: Oxford.
11. Mooney, P., Epstein, M. H., Reid, R., & Nelson, J. R. (2003). Status and trends in academic intervention research for students with emotional disturbance. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 273-287.
12. Nebraska Department of Education. (2000). Rule 51: Regulations and standards for special education programs (Title 92, Nebraska Administrative Code, Chapter 51). Lincoln: Author.
13. Northup, J. (2000). Further evaluation of the accuracy of reinforcer surveys: A systematic replication. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 335-338.
14. Northup, J., George, T., Jones, K., Broussard, C., & Vollmer, T. (1996). A comparison of reinforcer assessment methods: The utility of verbal and pictorial choice procedures. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 201-212.
15. Northup, J., Jones, K., Broussard, C., & George, T. (1995). A preliminary comparison of reinforcer assessment methods for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 99-100.
16. O'Shaughnessy, T. E., Lane, K. L., Gresham, F. M., & Beebe-Frankenberger, M. E. (2002). Students with or at risk for learning and emotional-behavioral difficulties: An integrated system of prevention and intervention. In K. L. Lane, F. M. Gresham, & T. E. O'Shaughnessy (Eds.), Interventions for children with or at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders (pp. 3-17). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
17. Pace, G. M., Ivancic, M. T., Edwards, G. L., Iwata, B. A., & Page, T. A. (1985). Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 249-255.
18. Paramore, N. W., & Higbee, T. S. (2005). An evaluation of a brief multiple-stimulus preference assessment with adolescents with emotional-behavioral disorders in an educational setting. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38, 399-403.
19. 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, 1-10.
20. 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.
21. Taravella, C. C., Lerman, D. C., Contrucci, S. A., & Roane, H. S. (2000). Further evaluation of low-ranked items in stimulus-choice preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 105-108.
22. Wilder, D. A., Ellsworth, C., White, H., & Schock, K. (2003). A comparison of stimulus preference assessment methods in adults with schizophrenia. Behavioral Interventions, 18, 151-160.
23. Wright, J. (2006). Math worksheet generator. Retrieved September 1, 2004, from http://www.interventioncentral.org