Predicting Preference for Items During Periods of Extended Access Based on Early Response Allocation

Rapp, John T.; Rojas, Nairim C.; Colby-Dirksen, Amanda M.; Swanson, Greg; Marvin, Kendra L.

doi:10.1901/jaba.2010.43-473

Cited by 12 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…NS = not selected Identifying the minimum amount of time necessary to empirically determine reinforcers would be highly valuable in future research as well. FO assessments are typically conducted in 5-min or longer durations (Roane et al, 1998;Rapp, Rojas, Colby-Dirksen, Swanson, & Marvin, 2010); however, this study used 2-min assessment sessions, which produced similar results as the PS and MSWO assessments. Thus, it is possible that FO assessments can be potentially more efficient than those reported previously.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

The effects of preference assessment type on problem behavior

Tung

Donaldson

Kahng

2017

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities who engage in problem behavior maintained by access to tangibles may exhibit more problem behavior during certain preference assessments. We compared three common preference assessments to determine which resulted in fewer problem behaviors. The paired stimulus and multiple-stimulus without replacement assessments produced higher rates of problem behavior than the free operant (FO) assessment, suggesting that the FO assessment may be the most appropriate assessment for individuals who engage in problem behavior maintained by access to tangibles.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

The effects of preference assessment type on problem behavior

Tung

Donaldson

Kahng

2017

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Relatedly, one potential limitation to the FOCSA model is that it requires the participant to manipulate two or more items across the assessment sessions. Without distributed response allocation, the analysis is similar to a brief free-operant stimulus preference assessment for which the limitations of exclusive allocation to a single, highly preferred item have been previously noted (e.g., Rapp, Rojas, Colby-Dirksen, Swanson, & Marvin, 2010; Roane et al, 1998). We addressed this problem by (a) conducting additional sessions with all the items and (b) removing the highly preferred item and conducting additional sessions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Further Analysis of the Predictive Effects of a Free-Operant Competing Stimulus Assessment on Stereotypy

et al. 2017

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We conducted five experiments to evaluate the predictive validity of a free-operant competing stimulus assessment (FOCSA). In Experiment 1, we showed that each participant's repetitive behavior persisted without social consequences. In Experiment 2, we used the FOCSA to identify high-preference, low-stereotypy (HP-LS) items for 11 participants and high-preference, high-stereotypy (HP-HS) items for nine participants. To validate the results of the FOCSAs (Experiment 3), we used a three-component multiple schedule to evaluate the immediate and subsequent effects of an HP-LS stimulus, an HP-HS stimulus, or both (in separate test sequences) on each participant's stereotypy. Results of Experiment 3 showed that the FOCSA correctly predicted the immediate effect of the HP-LS stimulus for 10 of 11 participants; however, the FOCSA predictions were less accurate for the HP-HS stimulus. Results of Experiment 4 showed that a differential reinforcement of other behavior procedure in which participants earned access to the HP-LS for omitting vocal stereotypy increased all five participants' latency to engaging in stereotypy; however, clinically significant omission durations were only achieved for one participant. Experiment 5 showed that differential reinforcement of alternative behavior in which participants earned access to the HP-LS stimulus contingent upon correct responses during discrete-trial training reduced targeted and nontargeted stereotypy and increased correct academic responding for all four participants. The potential utility of the FOCSA is discussed.

show abstract

“…Several applied studies that have examined differences in preference assessment outcomes as a function of duration of stimulus availability or engagement may lend some support for the notion that continuity of access may play an important role in determining the reinforcing value of some stimuli. In general, results of this research have suggested that relative preference for stimuli may differ according to duration of access (e.g., Kodak, Fisher, Kelley, & Kisamore, ; Steinhilber & Johnson, ) or that preference based on engagement during short durations of access may not always predict preference based on responding during extended periods of access (Rapp, Rojas, Colby‐Dirksen, Swanson, & Marvin, ). For example, Steinhilber and Johnson () compared preference for and reinforcing efficacy of various activities (e.g., music, video games) using a multiple‐stimulus‐without‐replacement (MWSO) preference assessment (DeLeon & Iwata, ) when the selected stimuli were delivered for 15 s or 15 min.…”

mentioning

confidence: 89%

Distributed and accumulated reinforcement arrangements: Evaluations of efficacy and preference

DeLeon

Chase

Frank‐Crawford

et al. 2014

J of App Behav Analysis

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We assessed the efficacy of, and preference for, accumulated access to reinforcers, which allows uninterrupted engagement with the reinforcers but imposes an inherent delay required to first complete the task. Experiment 1 compared rates of task completion in 4 individuals who had been diagnosed with intellectual disabilities when reinforcement was distributed (i.e., 30-s access to the reinforcer delivered immediately after each response) and accumulated (i.e., 5-min access to the reinforcer after completion of multiple consecutive responses). Accumulated reinforcement produced response rates that equaled or exceeded rates during distributed reinforcement for 3 participants. Experiment 2 used a concurrent-chains schedule to examine preferences for each arrangement. All participants preferred delayed, accumulated access when the reinforcer was an activity. Three participants also preferred accumulated access to edible reinforcers. The collective results suggest that, despite the inherent delay, accumulated reinforcement is just as effective and is often preferred by learners over distributed reinforcement.

show abstract

Predicting Preference for Items During Periods of Extended Access Based on Early Response Allocation

Cited by 12 publications

References 17 publications

The effects of preference assessment type on problem behavior

The effects of preference assessment type on problem behavior

Further Analysis of the Predictive Effects of a Free-Operant Competing Stimulus Assessment on Stereotypy

Distributed and accumulated reinforcement arrangements: Evaluations of efficacy and preference

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About