This study examined how differences in magnitude of stimuli across two categories stimuli affected preference when two different response requirements were incorporated into the preference assessments. Four adults with intellectual disabilities participated in the study. In Phase 1, one preferred leisure activity and one preferred edible stimuli were identified for each participant. In Phase 2, preference for the preferred leisure activity and preferred edible items were evaluated across two different magnitudes (high and low). In Phase 3, a reinforcer assessment was attempted to determine if there was a difference in the reinforcing properties of the preferred items as a function of magnitude. However, all participants responded at ceiling levels in a no reinforcement baseline. Thus, in Phase 4, the same from Phase 2 were presented with a work requirement component between the selection response and delivery of the selected stimulus during the preference assessment. The results of this study suggested that stimuli identified as high preferred when there was no response requirement also were identified as high preferred when there was a response requirement. However, fewer stimuli were selected when the response requirement was included, suggesting that adding a response requirement to the preference assessment may enhance the predictive validity of those assessments in identifying reinforcers. Key words: preference rank, type of preference, stimulus magnitude, reinforcing effects, leisure and edible stimuli

The preference assessment literature has mainly focused on children and adults with developmental disabilities. To date, minimal research related to preference and reinforcer assessments has been conducted with the elderly population with cognitive impairment. This study assessed the predictive validity of engagement- and selection-based preference assessment formats with two types of reinforcer assessments. One of these reinforcer assessments was engagement-based, and the other one included a task. The participants were three elderly individuals at an adult day program with a formal diagnosis of Dementia and a score less than 24 on the MMSE. The first participant's top items in the each preference assessment were validated in both reinforcer assessments. The second participant's top items from the free operant and MSWO were validated with the engagement-based reinforcer assessment, but the other assessment produced variable responding. The third participant's top items were validated in three out of four reinforcer assessments. Results are discussed in terms of their implications for preference and reinforcer assessments and their utility with the population of elderly adults with cognitive impairments.

When assessing preferences of individuals with developmental disabilities, choices can be described vocally or presented using objects or pictures in preference assessments. For individuals who are unable to perform auditory-visual discriminations and visual identity matching, objects instead of pictures or vocalizations need to be used for preference assessments to be effective. Considering the practical advantages of using pictures over objects, recent research has begun to focus on identifying and teaching skills needed for picture preference assessments. Although object-to-picture, picture-to-object, and generalized matching have been implicated as possible skills needed for picture preference assessments, further systematic studies are needed. The present study examined the relation between preference assessments (object vs. picture groups) and 5 discrimination skills. Based on direct paired-stimulus preference assessments completed at the beginning of the study, participants who could indicate their preferences with objects, but not with picture or vocal presentation, were assigned to the Object Group (n = 11); and participants who could indicate their preferences with both objects and pictures, but not vocal presentation, were assigned to the Picture Group (n = 9). The 5 discrimination tasks included: (a) object-picture matching and (b) its symmetry, picture-object matching; (c) generalized object-picture matching and (d) its symmetry, generalized picture-object matching; and (e) generalized identity picture-picture matching. All task stimuli were parts from everyday objects. Independent sample t-tests with Bonferroni correction showed that the percentages of correct responses were significantly higher in the Picture Group than in the Object Group on 4 of the 5 tasks (p < .01). Individual data showed that 8 of the 9 Picture Group participants met the pass criterion (80% or higher correct responses) on at least 1 discrimination task, with 6 participants passing 2 or more tasks. In contrast, only 1 of the 11 Object Group participants met the pass criterion on 1 discrimination task. The findings suggest that the effectiveness of picture preference assessments is not dependent on one specific discrimination, but possibly the ability to perform generalized matching.

When assessing preferences of individuals with developmental disabilities, choices can be described vocally or presented using objects or pictures in preference assessments. For individuals who are unable to perform auditory-visual discriminations and visual identity matching, objects instead of pictures or vocalizations need to be used for preference assessments to be effective. Considering the practical advantages of using pictures over objects, recent research has begun to focus on identifying and teaching skills needed for picture preference assessments. Although object-to-picture, picture-to-object, and generalized matching have been implicated as possible skills needed for picture preference assessments, further systematic studies are needed. The present study examined the relation between preference assessments (object vs. picture groups) and 5 discrimination skills. Based on direct paired-stimulus preference assessments completed at the beginning of the study, participants who could indicate their preferences with objects, but not with picture or vocal presentation, were assigned to the Object Group (n = 11); and participants who could indicate their preferences with both objects and pictures, but not vocal presentation, were assigned to the Picture Group (n = 9). The 5 discrimination tasks included: (a) object-picture matching and (b) its symmetry, picture-object matching; (c) generalized object-picture matching and (d) its symmetry, generalized picture-object matching; and (e) generalized identity picture-picture matching. All task stimuli were parts from everyday objects. Independent sample t-tests with Bonferroni correction showed that the percentages of correct responses were significantly higher in the Picture Group than in the Object Group on 4 of the 5 tasks (p < .01). Individual data showed that 8 of the 9 Picture Group participants met the pass criterion (80% or higher correct responses) on at least 1 discrimination task, with 6 participants passing 2 or more tasks. In contrast, only 1 of the 11 Object Group participants met the pass criterion on 1 discrimination task. The findings suggest that the effectiveness of picture preference assessments is not dependent on one specific discrimination, but possibly the ability to perform generalized matching.

No description available.

The identification of preferred and reinforcing stimuli has long been a focus of behavior analysts in applied settings. Research has primarily focused on different methodologies for assessing whether stimuli are preferred and there has been additional research on identifying under what conditions those stimuli will function as reinforcers. Recently, research has begun to examine responses and reinforcers from a behavioral economic perspective. The present study compared responding in a situation where the price of one item was increased, but the price of alternative items remained the same, to a situation where the price of all available items increased. Multiple stimulus with replacement (MS) preference assessment methodology was used and price was altered by increasing the distance of the stimuli from the participant. During the first assessment, the item chosen most frequently in the first session was systematically moved 6 - 24 inches beyond the other items during subsequent sessions. During the second assessment, all items were systematically moved 6 - 24 inches beyond the starting point in front of the participant during subsequent sessions. Results for the first assessment indicated that for four of the five participants, consumption of the target item decreased as a function of increased price for that item. Results for the second assessment indicated that at high costs, clear preference for one item was observed for three of the five participants. Taken collectively, these results suggest that response effort is a variable that should be taken into consideration when evaluating effective treatments for individuals with disabilities. Preference and reinforcer effectiveness may shift as individuals are presented with tasks that require increased response effort in terms of reaching or moving about their environment. / Educational Psychology

No description available.

No description available.

The purpose of this study was to determine whether altering parameters of positive and negative reinforcement in identical ways could influence behavior maintained by each in different ways. Three undergraduate students participated in a series of assessments designed to identify preferred and aversive sounds with similar reinforcing values. Following reinforcer identification, we conducted parameter sensitivity assessments for both positive and negative reinforcers. Parameter manipulations influenced behavior in the same way across reinforcement processes for two participants. However, for one participant, the way in which parameter manipulations influenced behavior differed according to the reinforcement process. Our results suggest that, for at least some individuals, positive and negative sound reinforcement processes do not influence behavior in identical ways. Clinical and theoretical implications are discussed.