A COMPARISON OF TWO APPROACHES FOR IDENTIFYING REINFORCERS FOR PERSONS WITH SEVERE AND PROFOUND DISABILITIES

Wayne Fisher, Cathleen C. Piazza, Lynn G. Bowman, Louis P. Hagopian, James C. Owens, Irene Slevin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

796 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The development of effective training programs for persons with profound mental retardation remains one of the greatest challenges for behavior analysts working in the field of developmental disabilities. One significant advancement for this population has been the reinforcer assessment procedure developed by Pace, Ivancic, Edwards, Iwata, and Page (1985), which involves repeatedly presenting a variety of stimuli to the client and then measuring approach behaviors to differentiate preferred from nonpreferred stimuli. One potential limitation of this procedure is that some clients consistently approach most or all of the stimuli on each presentation, making it difficult to differentiate among these stimuli. In this study, we used a concurrent operants paradigm to compare the Pace et al. (1985) procedure with a modified procedure wherein clients were presented with two stimuli simultaneously and were given access only to the first stimulus approached. The results revealed that this forced‐choice stimulus preference assessment resulted in greater differentiation among stimuli and better predicted which stimuli would result in higher levels of responding when presented contingently in a concurrent operants paradigm. 1992 Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)491-498
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of applied behavior analysis
Volume25
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1992

Fingerprint

stimulus
disability
human being
Choice Behavior
Developmental Disabilities
Intellectual Disability
Education
paradigm
Stimulus
Person
Population
training program

Keywords

  • assessment
  • concurrent operants
  • predictive validity
  • reinforcer preference
  • severely mentally retarded

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Philosophy
  • Applied Psychology
  • Sociology and Political Science

Cite this

A COMPARISON OF TWO APPROACHES FOR IDENTIFYING REINFORCERS FOR PERSONS WITH SEVERE AND PROFOUND DISABILITIES. / Fisher, Wayne; Piazza, Cathleen C.; Bowman, Lynn G.; Hagopian, Louis P.; Owens, James C.; Slevin, Irene.

In: Journal of applied behavior analysis, Vol. 25, No. 2, 01.01.1992, p. 491-498.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Fisher, Wayne ; Piazza, Cathleen C. ; Bowman, Lynn G. ; Hagopian, Louis P. ; Owens, James C. ; Slevin, Irene. / A COMPARISON OF TWO APPROACHES FOR IDENTIFYING REINFORCERS FOR PERSONS WITH SEVERE AND PROFOUND DISABILITIES. In: Journal of applied behavior analysis. 1992 ; Vol. 25, No. 2. pp. 491-498.
@article{4173c196bf0f4e56a20d2db023de2dcb,
title = "A COMPARISON OF TWO APPROACHES FOR IDENTIFYING REINFORCERS FOR PERSONS WITH SEVERE AND PROFOUND DISABILITIES",
abstract = "The development of effective training programs for persons with profound mental retardation remains one of the greatest challenges for behavior analysts working in the field of developmental disabilities. One significant advancement for this population has been the reinforcer assessment procedure developed by Pace, Ivancic, Edwards, Iwata, and Page (1985), which involves repeatedly presenting a variety of stimuli to the client and then measuring approach behaviors to differentiate preferred from nonpreferred stimuli. One potential limitation of this procedure is that some clients consistently approach most or all of the stimuli on each presentation, making it difficult to differentiate among these stimuli. In this study, we used a concurrent operants paradigm to compare the Pace et al. (1985) procedure with a modified procedure wherein clients were presented with two stimuli simultaneously and were given access only to the first stimulus approached. The results revealed that this forced‐choice stimulus preference assessment resulted in greater differentiation among stimuli and better predicted which stimuli would result in higher levels of responding when presented contingently in a concurrent operants paradigm. 1992 Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior",
keywords = "assessment, concurrent operants, predictive validity, reinforcer preference, severely mentally retarded",
author = "Wayne Fisher and Piazza, {Cathleen C.} and Bowman, {Lynn G.} and Hagopian, {Louis P.} and Owens, {James C.} and Irene Slevin",
year = "1992",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1901/jaba.1992.25-491",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "25",
pages = "491--498",
journal = "Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis",
issn = "0021-8855",
publisher = "Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A COMPARISON OF TWO APPROACHES FOR IDENTIFYING REINFORCERS FOR PERSONS WITH SEVERE AND PROFOUND DISABILITIES

AU - Fisher, Wayne

AU - Piazza, Cathleen C.

AU - Bowman, Lynn G.

AU - Hagopian, Louis P.

AU - Owens, James C.

AU - Slevin, Irene

PY - 1992/1/1

Y1 - 1992/1/1

N2 - The development of effective training programs for persons with profound mental retardation remains one of the greatest challenges for behavior analysts working in the field of developmental disabilities. One significant advancement for this population has been the reinforcer assessment procedure developed by Pace, Ivancic, Edwards, Iwata, and Page (1985), which involves repeatedly presenting a variety of stimuli to the client and then measuring approach behaviors to differentiate preferred from nonpreferred stimuli. One potential limitation of this procedure is that some clients consistently approach most or all of the stimuli on each presentation, making it difficult to differentiate among these stimuli. In this study, we used a concurrent operants paradigm to compare the Pace et al. (1985) procedure with a modified procedure wherein clients were presented with two stimuli simultaneously and were given access only to the first stimulus approached. The results revealed that this forced‐choice stimulus preference assessment resulted in greater differentiation among stimuli and better predicted which stimuli would result in higher levels of responding when presented contingently in a concurrent operants paradigm. 1992 Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

AB - The development of effective training programs for persons with profound mental retardation remains one of the greatest challenges for behavior analysts working in the field of developmental disabilities. One significant advancement for this population has been the reinforcer assessment procedure developed by Pace, Ivancic, Edwards, Iwata, and Page (1985), which involves repeatedly presenting a variety of stimuli to the client and then measuring approach behaviors to differentiate preferred from nonpreferred stimuli. One potential limitation of this procedure is that some clients consistently approach most or all of the stimuli on each presentation, making it difficult to differentiate among these stimuli. In this study, we used a concurrent operants paradigm to compare the Pace et al. (1985) procedure with a modified procedure wherein clients were presented with two stimuli simultaneously and were given access only to the first stimulus approached. The results revealed that this forced‐choice stimulus preference assessment resulted in greater differentiation among stimuli and better predicted which stimuli would result in higher levels of responding when presented contingently in a concurrent operants paradigm. 1992 Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior

KW - assessment

KW - concurrent operants

KW - predictive validity

KW - reinforcer preference

KW - severely mentally retarded

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0026882258&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0026882258&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1901/jaba.1992.25-491

DO - 10.1901/jaba.1992.25-491

M3 - Article

C2 - 1634435

AN - SCOPUS:0026882258

VL - 25

SP - 491

EP - 498

JO - Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis

JF - Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis

SN - 0021-8855

IS - 2

ER -