Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Loading next page...
/lp/wiley/evaluation-of-a-multiple-stimulus-presentation-format-for-assessing-3cGUGDflNj
References (11)
-
C. Piazza, C. Piazza, Wayne Fisher, L. Hagopian, L. Bowman, Lisa Toole (1996)
Using a choice assessment to predict reinforcer effectiveness.Journal of applied behavior analysis, 29 1
-
Richard Smith, B. Iwata, B. Shore (1995)
Effects of subject- versus experimenter-selected reinforcers on the behavior of individuals with profound developmental disabilities.Journal of applied behavior analysis, 28 1
-
S. Mason, G. McGee, V. Farmer-Dougan, T. Risley (1989)
A practical strategy for ongoing reinforcer assessment.Journal of applied behavior analysis, 22 2
-
C. Green, Dennis Reid, Linda White, Richard Halford, Doris Brittain, S. Gardner (1988)
Identifying reinforcers for persons with profound handicaps: staff opinion versus systematic assessment of preferences.Journal of applied behavior analysis, 21 1
-
G. Pace, M. Ivancic, G. Edwards, B. Iwata, T. Page (1985)
Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals.Journal of applied behavior analysis, 18 3
-
Wayne Fisher, C. Piazza, L. Bowman, L. Hagopian, James Owens, Irene Slevin (1992)
A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities.Journal of applied behavior analysis, 25 2
-
(1996)
Action Editor -
J. Windsor, Laura Piché, Peggy Locke (1994)
Preference testing: a comparison of two presentation methods.Research in developmental disabilities, 15 6
-
What was the purpose of the second experiment and what criteria were used in selecting the stimuli? 5. Describe the basic design used in the second experiment and the results that were obtained -
M. Fehr, D. Wacker, J. Trezise, R. Lennon, L. Meyerson (1979)
Visual, auditory, and vibratory stimulation as reinforcers for profoundly retarded children.Rehabilitation Psychology, 26
-
T. Paclawskyj, T. Vollmer (1995)
Reinforcer assessment for children with developmental disabilities and visual impairments.Journal of applied behavior analysis, 28 2
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Copyright
- 1996 Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
- ISSN
- 0021-8855
- eISSN
- 1938-3703
- DOI
- 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-519
- pmid
- 8995834
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site
Abstract
We compared three methods for presenting stimuli during reinforcer‐preference assessments: a paired‐stimulus format (PS), a multiple‐stimulus format in which selections were made with replacement (MSW), and a multiple‐stimulus format in which selections were made without replacement (MSWO). Results obtained for 7 participants showed moderate to high rank‐order correlations between the MSWO and PS procedures and a similar number of identified reinforcers. In addition, the time to administer the MSWO procedure was comparable to that required for the MSW method and less than half that required to administer the PS procedure. Subsequent tests of reinforcement effects revealed that some stimuli selected in the PS and MSWO procedures, but not selected in the MSW procedure, functioned as reinforcers for arbitrary responses. These preliminary results suggest that the multiple‐stimulus procedure without replacement may share the respective advantages of the other methods.
Journal
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis – Wiley
Published: Dec 1, 1996