Further Evaluation of the Displacement of Leisure Items by Food During Stimulus Preference Assessments with Children with Autism

Andakyan, Luiza; Fryling, Mitch J.; Benjamin, Kimberly

doi:10.1007/s10882-016-9483-3

Cited by 9 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Mathematical symbols and values (e.g., +2) indicate the manner in which the PR schedule increased. participants, range: 67% to 100%; Andakyan et al, 2016;Bojak & Carr, 1999;Conine & Vollmer, 2018;DeLeon, Iwata, & Roscoe, 1997;Fahmie et al, 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Figure 1 shows the consumption percentages for the edible and leisure stimuli during the single-class and combined-class MSWO assessments. We categorized each participant's consumption during the combined-class MSWO assessments into one of three displacement patterns previously reported in the literature as (a) participants selected all stimuli from one stimulus class prior to selecting all stimuli from another stimulus class (Andakyan et al, 2016;Bojak & Carr, 1999;Conine & Vollmer, 2018;DeLeon, Iwata, & Roscoe, 1997;Fahmie et al, 2015), (b) participants selected two stimuli from one stimulus class prior to selecting all stimuli from another class (Andakyan et al, 2016;Conine & Vollmer, 2018;DeLeon, Iwata, & Roscoe, 1997), and (c) participants selected all stimuli from one stimulus class prior to selecting all but one stimulus from another stimulus class (Andakyan et al, 2016;Conine & Vollmer, 2018;Fahmie et al, 2015). If a participant's consumption behavior did not meet one of these three criteria, we determined that the participant did not display displacement of one stimulus class over the other.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some factors that may influence preference assessment outcomes include: (a) the number of stimuli included in an array (Fisher et al, 1992), (b) the type of response measure (engagement or approach; Rech, 2012), (c) motivating operations (Gottschalk, Libby, & Graff, 2000), and (d) the composition of the array. To date, five studies have examined the effects of array composition by assessing the preference for one stimulus class over another with individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD; Andakyan, Fryling, & Benjamin, 2016;Bojak & Carr, 1999;Conine & Vollmer, 2018;DeLeon, Iwata, & Roscoe, 1997;Fahmie, Iwata, & Jann, 2015). DeLeon, Iwata, and Roscoe (1997) were the first to evaluate the displacement of one stimulus class over another.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two noteworthy gaps in this literature warrant further investigation. First, the five previous studies on this topic included participants with IDD (Andakyan et al, 2016;Bojak & Carr, 1999;Conine & Vollmer, 2018;DeLeon, Iwata, & Roscoe, 1997;Fahmie et al, 2015). This area of research has not been evaluated with typically developing children; thus, it seems prudent to determine if typically developing children generally prefer one stimulus class over another.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A comparison of displacement and reinforcer potency for typically developing children

Carter

Zonneveld

2019

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous researchers found that individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities tend to prefer edible over leisure stimuli, although leisure stimuli may still function as reinforcers. We replicated and extended previous research in a 2-part experiment with typically developing children. In Experiment 1, we evaluated 15 children's preference for leisure and edible stimuli. Five of 15 participants preferred edible over leisure stimuli, 3 of 15 participants preferred leisure over edible stimuli, and the remaining 7 of 15 participants did not show a preference for a stimulus class. In Experiment 2, we compared the reinforcer potency of the top-ranked stimulus from each class with 7 of the 8 participants who showed displacement of one stimulus class. Four of 7 participants allocated more responding to the task associated with the top-ranked stimulus and 3 of 7 participants showed no differences in responding to the task regardless of the stimulus rank.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A comparison of displacement and reinforcer potency for typically developing children

Carter

Zonneveld

2019

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In terms of preference between stimulus categories, several studies have shown that food items are preferred to non-food items with people with developmental disabilities (Bojak & Carr, 1999;DeLeon, Iwata, & Roscoe, 1997;Fahmie, Iwata, & Jann, 2015). However, a recent study has found conflicting evidence suggesting no preference between food and non-food items (Andakyan, Fryling, & Benjamin, 2016). One limitation to all these studies is that the reinforcing values of the items were unknown prior to conducting the stimulus preference assessments.…”

Section: List Of Figuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preference for Food and Non-food Items of Known Reinforcing Values in People with Developmental Disabilities

Heckert

Barca

2019

J Dev Phys Disabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When presenting reinforcers to individuals with developmental disabilities, many researchers use food. However, there may be other types of reinforcers which may be equally or more effective.Although preference assessment methods have been well-researched, one area that has not yet been resolved is whether food reinforcers are always more preferred than non-food reinforcers, when both are presented in the same assessment. This study compared preference for food and non-food items with similar and dissimilar reinforcing values in three people with developmental disabilities. The study first measured the reinforcing value of food and non-food items and used these items in a subsequent preference assessment. Results showed that (a) when food and nonfood items were of approximately equal reinforcing value, or when food was more reinforcing than the non-food items, food tended to be preferred, and (b) when non-food items were much more reinforcing than food items, non-food items tended to be preferred. their feedback and suggestions; and Michelle Barca for her help with reliability checks. Furthermore, I thank St.Amant and the participants for making this research possible.

show abstract

A methodological review of preference displacement research

White

Melanson

Sipila‐Thomas

et al. 2020

Behavioral Interventions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this review was to identify and compare methodological components of preference displacement research and outcomes. We coded, categorized, and defined patterns of preference displacement for a total of 133 participants across 10 studies. We found that patterns of displacement differed within and across studies, and over 46% of participants did not engage in patterns of displacement. Therefore, the commonly held notion that edible stimuli are more likely to displace tangible stimuli is not as ubiquitous as once thought. However, due to considerable variation in methodology and reporting across reviewed studies, it is difficult to determine what variables may be responsible for obtained study outcomes. We conclude that future researchers consider the importance of each methodological variable coded in our review, and make methodological decisions in the context of the research question they are looking to answer. We also provide additional suggestions for future research and clinical practice.

show abstract

Further Evaluation of the Displacement of Leisure Items by Food During Stimulus Preference Assessments with Children with Autism

Cited by 9 publications

References 2 publications

A comparison of displacement and reinforcer potency for typically developing children

A comparison of displacement and reinforcer potency for typically developing children

Preference for Food and Non-food Items of Known Reinforcing Values in People with Developmental Disabilities

A methodological review of preference displacement research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About