Unit 3: DeLeon on Preference/Reinforcer Assessments Flashcards
method for identifying individual’s preferences amont varios items, events, and activities.
preference assessment
approaches to preference assessment
- indirect (informant-based) methods
- naturalistic (in vivo) direct observation
- reinforcer sampling procedures (empirical)
a systematic preference assessment method to expose individuals to, or provide an individual with, a variety of stimuli or activities and measuring which are preferred.
reinforcer sampling
types of preference assessment
- selection-based preference assessment
- duration-based preference assessment
reinforcer sampling procedure in which items are presented systematically to produce preference hierarchies.
selection-based preference assessment
types of selection-based preference assessment
- single-item/approach method (single-stimulus assessment)
- paired -choice (forced-choice) preference assessment
- multiple-stimulus preference assessment (with or without replacement)
reinforcer samiling procedure in which items are presented, one at a time, in front of the person, and is measured whether or not they were approached. Preference hierarchy is based on the number of times an item was approached given the number of times it was presented.
single-item/approach method (single-stimulus assessment)
reinforcer sampling procedure in which items are presented, two at a time, in front of the person, and it is measured which item was approached. Preference hierarchy is based on the number of times an item was selected given the number of times it was presented.
paired-choice (forced-choice) preference assessment
n (n-1) / 2
formula to calculate the number of trials derived from a paired-choice preference assessment
reinforcer sampling procedure in which all items are presented simultaneously. particpants select one from among all items during each trial
multiple-stimulus preference assessment
types of multiple-stimulus preference assessment
- with replacement
- without replacement
multiple-stimulus preference assessment in which participants select an item from an array. the same array is presented multiple times.
multiple-stimulus with replacement
preference assessment in which items are presented to the individuals and the proportion of time spent engaging the items is recorded as a measure of preference.
duration-based preference assessment
multiple-stimulus preference assessment in which participants select an item from an array. The items selected are removed from the array, and this procedure is repeated until all items have been selected from the array.
multiple-stimulus without replacement
types of duration-based preference assessment
- single item presentation
- free operant (or multiple item) assessments
- competing stimulus preference assessment
duration based preference assessment in which each item is presented individually several times and the amount of time spent engaging the item is recorded as a measure of preference.
single-item presentation (duration-based preference assessment)
duration-based preference assessment in which all items are presented simultaneously and the amount of time spent engaging with each item is recorded as a measure of preference.
free operant (or multiple item) assessment (duration-based preference assessment)
duration-based preference assessment used to determine the extent to which stimuli displace problem bx.
competing stimulus preference assessment
a variety of direct, empirical methods for presenting one or more stimuli contingent on a target response and measuring their effectivenes as reinforcers.
reinforcer assessment
types of reinforcer assessments
- single-operant arrangement
- concurrent operant arrangement
reinforer assessment in which the reinforcer efficacy of a single item is tested by comparing levels of a response when it is delivered as a consequence to levels observed during baseline (no consequence).
single-operant arrangement
reinforcer assessment in which a concurrent schedule is used to compare the relative strength of two or more reinforcers.
concurrent operant arrangement
reinforcer schedule in which the ratio requirements increase following each reinforcer delivery. sessions continue until the participant ceases to respond for criterion amount of time (breaking point)
progressive ratio schedule
failure to identify an item as a reinforcer because it ranks low in a preference assessment.
false negative (related to preference assessment)
identifying an item as a reinforcer when in fact it is not.
false positive (related to preference assessment)
Identifies highly preferred stimuli via caregiver report (these results can be integrated with a systematic preference assessement to identify reinforcers)
The Reinforcer Asessment for Individuals with Severe Disabilities (RAISD)
(Fisher, Piazza, Bowman, and Amari, 1996)
Quantification of the relation between two variables ranked on an ordinal scale.
values can range from -1.0 (strong negative correlation) to 1.0 (strong positive correlation).
rank-order correlation coefficients
Spearman’s rho; Kendall’s tou
Found that duration-based preference assessment may help to clarify ambiguous selection-based assessment results.
DeLeon, Iwata, Conners and Wallace (1999)
Found that individualized determination of sample lengths was more accurate than predictions based on typical lengths. (for duration based preference assessments)
DeLeon, Toole, Gutshall, and Bowman (2005)
Found that the effective use of verbal preference assessments depends on the individual’s language abilities.
Cohen-Almedia, Graff, and Ahern (2000)
Northup (2000)
Found that although participants showed a preference for food items when food and non-food stimuli were presented together in a preference assessment, when a non-food item was delivered contingent on the occurence of an adaptive response, increased rates of responding were observed.
DeLeon, Iwata, and Roscoe (1997)
Found that participants who functioned on level 3 of the ABLA (can make 2 choice visual discriminations) were predicted to be able to indicate preferences only with preference assessments in which they choose among actual objects.
Conyers et al. (2002)
Found that stimuli lying along various points of a preference hierarchy produce similarly ordered measure of relative reinforcer value.
Car, Nicholson, and Higbee (2000)
Piazza et al. (1996)
Found that low-preference stimuli produced high response rates during the single-operant schedule, but lower rates under the concurrent arrangement.
Roscoe, Iwata, and Kahng (1999)
Found that greater stability was observed for the top ranked stimuli.
Zhou et al. (2001)
Demonstrated that more responding was allocated to the tasks associated with the daily top-ranked stimulus (identified by the daily brief preference assessment)
DeLeon et al. (2000)
Found that stimuli ranked high on a systematic assessment functioned more reliably as reinforcers than those ranked high on a staff opinion survey.
Green, Reid, White, Halford, Brittain, & Gardner (1988)
Found that systematic assessments identified more effective reinforcers than teacher surveys.
Cote, Thompson, Hanley, and McKerchar (2007)
Identifying representative sampling parameters (Johnston and Pennypacker, 1993)
1- Sample the bx during intervals of varying length
2- note the variability associated with each
3- select the interval for which reductions in variability were either miniscule or unimportant.