Assessment of Stimulus Preference and Reinforcer Value With Profoundly Retarded Individuals

Pace, Gary M.; Ivancic, Martin T.; Edwards, Glynnis L.; Iwata, Brian A.; Page, Terry J.

doi:10.1901/jaba.1985.18-249

Cited by 511 publications

(431 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

411

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Prior to the study, five preferred items were identified for each individual via both single-presentation (Pace, Ivancic, Edwards, Iwata, & Page, 1985) and paired-stimulus (Fisher et al, 1992) preference assessments. Items approached on at least 80% of the trials during the single-presentation assessment, on at least 50% of the trials during the paired-stimulus assessment, or both, were identified as preferred stimuli; of these items, the five stimuli with the highest percentages of approach responses were included in the study.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Reinforcement Choice on Task Responding in Individuals With Developmental Disabilities

Lerman

Iwata

Rainville

et al. 1997

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of reinforcement choice on task performance were examined with 6 individuals who had been diagnosed with severe to profound mental retardation. Five highly preferred items were identified for each participant via stimulus preference assessments. Participants then were exposed to choice and no-choice conditions that were alternated within reversal and multielement designs. During choice sessions, participants were permitted to select between two preferred stimuli contingent on responding. During nochoice sessions, the therapist delivered a single item contingent on responding. Preference for the stimuli was held constant across conditions by yoking the items delivered during no-choice sessions to those selected during the immediately preceding choice sessions. All participants exhibited similar rates of responding across choice and no-choice conditions. These findings indicate that for individuals with severe disabilities, access to choice may not improve task performance when highly preferred items are already incorporated into instructional programs.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Reinforcement Choice on Task Responding in Individuals With Developmental Disabilities

Lerman

Iwata

Rainville

et al. 1997

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The technology for allowing persons with intellectual disabilities to choose from among two or more items, often referred to as preference assessments, has steadily advanced over the past 20 years (DeLeon & Iwata, 1996;Fisher et al, 1992;Pace, Ivancic, Edwards, Iwata, & Page, 1985). However, preference assessments usually allow people to choose only from among items that can be placed in one's hand or on a table top (e.g., toys, candy, etc.).…”

Section: How Can Recipients Of Behavior-change Procedures Bementioning

confidence: 99%

Toward Effective and Preferred Programming: A Case for the Objective Measurement of Social Validity with Recipients of Behavior-Change Programs

Hanley

2010

Behav Analysis Practice

167

146

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The adoption of effective behavioral interventions and teaching strategies for young children is largely influenced by the extent to which stakeholders find the procedures appropriate and the effects important. Stakeholder values have been described by measures of social validity in applied behavior analysis, and these measures have been a part of behavior-analytic research and practice since their important characteristics were described in the late 1970s. The typically subjective nature of the social validation process appears, however, to have marginalized children and other usual recipients of behavior-change procedures (i.e., individuals with autism or intellectual disabilities) from social validation processes. Therefore, the importance of including recipients of behavior-change procedures in the social validation process and methods for doing so are described in this paper. Keywords: Autism, choice, concurrent chains, intellectual disability, preference, recipient inclusion, social validity ABSTRACT T

show abstract

“…A number of applied studies have been conducted in recent years on stimulus preference procedures and have demonstrated the effectiveness of assessing preference for stimuli prior to using them as reinforcers to both increase (Pace, Ivancic, Edwards, Iwata, & Page, 1985) and decrease (Steege et al, 1989) behavior. In light of the present results, which clearly indicated that preference in one context may not predict preference in another, it appears that the variables that affect choice in applied settings, and the extent to which assessing reinforcing efficacy in one context is predictive of reinforcer efficacy in another, are in need of further investigation.…”

Section: Effort Manipulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Analysis of Reinforcer Substitutability Using Object Manipulation and Self‐injury as Competing Responses

Shore

Iwata

DeLeon

et al. 1997

J of App Behav Analysis

112

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of reinforcer substitutability proposes a continuum of interactions among reinforcers in a given situation. At one end of this continuum, reinforcers are substitutable, with one reinforcer being readily traded for another. We conducted an analysis of reinforcers that were substitutable with those produced by self-injurious behavior (SIB). Three individuals with profound developmental disabilities, whose SIB appeared to be maintained by automatic reinforcement, participated. Results of three experiments showed that (a) object manipulation and SIB were inversely related when leisure materials and SIB were concurrently available, with participants showing almost complete preference for object manipulation; (b) attempts to reduce SIB using the preferred objects as reinforcers in differential reinforcement contingencies were unsuccessful for all 3 participants; and (c) participants' preferences for SIB or object manipulation systematically changed when reinforcer cost (the amount of effort required to obtain the object) was varied. Results of the three experiments illustrate the importance of examining interactions among concurrently available reinforcers when conducting reinforcer assessments.DESCRIPTORS: stereotypy, self-injurious behavior, reinforcer substitutability, differential reinforcement of other behavior Although considerable research has shown that many behavior problems are maintained by social reinforcement, such as attention from caregivers

show abstract

Assessment of Stimulus Preference and Reinforcer Value With Profoundly Retarded Individuals

Cited by 511 publications

References 11 publications

Effects of Reinforcement Choice on Task Responding in Individuals With Developmental Disabilities

Effects of Reinforcement Choice on Task Responding in Individuals With Developmental Disabilities

Toward Effective and Preferred Programming: A Case for the Objective Measurement of Social Validity with Recipients of Behavior-Change Programs

An Analysis of Reinforcer Substitutability Using Object Manipulation and Self‐injury as Competing Responses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About