The multiple‐stimulus‐without‐replacement preference assessment tool and its predictive validity

Abstract

This study demonstrates the use of two web‐based programs, one to identify video preferences and the other to assess their reinforcing effects. We used the Multiple‐Stimulus‐Without‐Replacement Preference Assessment Tool (MSWO PAT) to identify the video preference hierarchies of seven participants, ages 4–11 years old. We then used a customized reinforcer assessment program that arranged a concurrent‐chains preparation with programmed conjugate schedules of reinforcement. Button presses emitted by participants modulated the quality (volume and opacity) of selected videos on a moment‐to‐moment basis, allowing us to identify the reinforcing effects of the videos in little time. The results showed that the preference assessment had predictive value for five of seven participants. We discuss the MSWO PAT, parameters that may affect the identification of preferences and the use of conjugate schedules to identify reinforcers.

Assessing stimulus preference using response force in a conjugate preparation: A replication and extension

“…The results from the current study also provide further proof-of-concept support for the use of conjugate assessments. Curiel et al (2024) used a conjugate preparation, similar to the one described by MacAleese et al (2015), to validate brief and full MSWO assessments with school children with speech impairments and intellectual disabilities. After Curiel et al identified a hierarchy of preferred video categories for each participant via the MSWO, their participants completed the conjugate assessment wherein they pressed a button at a rate of twice per second to either maintain or increase the audio and visual clarity of videos.…”

“…Several applied and translational studies have shown the potential of synchronous and conjugate schedules for evaluating stimulus preference and the efficacy of those stimuli to serve as reinforcers (Cook et al, 2024;Curiel et al, 2024;Davis et al, 2021;Diaz de Villegas et al, 2020;Falligant et al, 2018Falligant et al, , 2020MacAleese et al, 2015;Peterson et al, 2024; see also Pel aez-Nogueras et al, 1996). Davis et al (2021) used a conjugate preparation to measure 54 college students' preferences for pictorial stimuli.…”

Comparing stimulus preference and response force in a conjugate preparation: A replication with auditory stimulation

“…The arrangement of conjugate schedules may have a variety of applications to affect behavior. One avenue to explore in applied and translational research is using conjugate schedules for simplifying preference assessments (Curiel et al, 2023;Rapp, 2008;Saunders & Saunders, 2011).…”

“…Recently, researchers have developed dynamic conjugate preparations for translational (e.g., Davis et al, 2021;Falligant et al, 2018Falligant et al, , 2020MacAleese et al, 2015;Peterson et al, 2024) and applied (Curiel et al, 2023;Deochand et al, 2020;Diaz de Villegas et al, 2020;McHugh et al, 2022) studies. Briefly summarized, results from MacAleese et al (2015), Curiel et al, 2023;Falligant et al (2018Falligant et al ( , 2020, and Deochand et al (2020) illustrate how (a) behavior under conjugate schedules changes reliably to various auditory and visual stimulus events and (b) extinction of conjugately reinforced behavior gives rise to dynamic changes in response rate and response force. These characteristics illustrate the immediate direct effects and the acute sensitivity that conjugate schedules have on responding.…”

Multiple schedules of conjugate reinforcement and extinction: A translational model for assessing automatically reinforced behavior

“…Rapp argued that the ideal simulation for automatically reinforced behavior is a translational preparation with a conjugate schedule of reinforcement. Researchers have since taken advantage of the observation by using conjugate schedules to evaluate translational questions pertaining to stimulus preference (Curiel et al, 2024;Davis et al, 2021;MacAleese et al, 2015) and response force during extinction (e.g., Falligant et al, 2018Falligant et al, , 2020.…”