Evaluation of Absolute and Relative Reinforcer Value Using Progressive‐ratio Schedules

Abstract

We evaluated behavior exhibited by individuals with developmental disabilities using progressive-ratio (PR) schedules. High- and low-preference stimuli were determined based on the results of a paired-stimulus preference assessment and were evaluated in subsequent reinforcer and PR assessments using concurrent and single schedules of presentation. In Experiment 1, results showed that for 2 of 3 participants, stimuli determined to be low-preference functioned as reinforcers when evaluated independent of high-preference stimuli. Further, the results from Experiment 2 showed that low-preference stimuli also functioned as reinforcers under gradually increasing PR requirements. Results suggest that for cases in which a high-preference stimulus is unavailable or impractical, the contingent delivery of relatively less preferred stimuli may maintain appropriate behavior, even as schedule requirements increase.

The role of context in the evaluation of reinforcer efficacy: Implications for the preference assessment outcomes

“…Taken together, the combined results of Roscoe et al (1999), Taravella et al (2000) and other investigations (e.g., DeLeon, Iwata, & Roscoe, 1997; Francisco, Borrero, & Sy, 2008) suggest that the availability of relatively highly preferred stimuli (e.g., food) in a preference assessment might affect the identification of other potential reinforcers (i.e., those identified as less preferred). Correspondingly, preference assessments might result in an over identification of “false negatives” (i.e., stimuli that are identified as less preferred yet would function as effective reinforcers).…”

“…Over the past 25 years, a number of preference assessments have been developed in an attempt to accomplish this goal. Although it is commonly held that stimuli identified as highly preferred in a preference assessment will function as effective positive reinforcers (Fisher et al, 1992), a growing number of investigations (e.g., DeLeon et al, 1997; Francisco et al, 2008; Roscoe et al, 1999; Taravella et al, 2000) have demonstrated the less preferred stimuli also may function as positive reinforcers. Such outcomes may give the impression that a stimulus which functions as a reinforcer in one context will also function as a reinforcer in another context.…”

Examining the reinforcing value of stimuli within social and non-social contexts in children with and without high-functioning autism

“…PR schedules have been used for decades in basic research to gauge relative reinforcer effectiveness and have been used increasingly in applied settings as a means to determine the potency of reinforcers for children with ASD and other developmental disabilities (e.g. DeLeon et al, 2009, 2011; Francisco et al, 2008; Glover et al, 2008; Kenzer et al, 2013; Tiger et al, 2010). The procedure yields a break point (BP) as a measure of reinforcer efficacy , defined as the extent to which an individual will work to gain access a stimulus.…”

Correspondence Between Single Versus Daily Preference Assessment Outcomes and Reinforcer Efficacy Under Progressive‐ratio Schedules

“…It remains unclear if all preference assessment formats perform equally well when it comes to the identification of effective reinforcers, as measured by performance on PR schedules. Although some studies have evaluated the correspondence between preference and reinforcer efficacy using PR schedules (e.g., DeLeon et al, 2009; Francisco et al, 2008; Glover, Roane, Kadey, & Grow, 2008; Penrod et al, 2008), most determined preference using PS assessments only. Less is known about how well preference, as measured by other assessment formats that are commonly used in clinical settings, corresponds with reinforcer efficacy, as measured by break points.…”