On the Correspondence Between Preference Assessment Outcomes and Progressive‐ratio Schedule Assessments of Stimulus Value

Abstract

The current study examined whether stimuli of different preference levels would be associated with different amounts of work maintained by the stimuli, as determined through progressive-ratio schedule break points. Using a paired-choice preference assessment, stimuli were classified as high, moderate, or low preference for 4 individuals with developmental disabilities. The stimuli were then tested three times each using a progressive-ratio schedule (step size of 1; the break-point criterion was 1 min). In 10 of 12 possible comparisons, higher preference stimuli produced larger break points than did lower preference stimuli.

Examining the reinforcing value of stimuli within social and non-social contexts in children with and without high-functioning autism

“…PR schedules have been used for decades in basic research to gauge relative reinforcer effectiveness and have been used increasingly in applied settings as a means to determine the potency of reinforcers for children with ASD and other developmental disabilities (e.g. DeLeon et al, 2009, 2011; Francisco et al, 2008; Glover et al, 2008; Kenzer et al, 2013; Tiger et al, 2010). The procedure yields a break point (BP) as a measure of reinforcer efficacy , defined as the extent to which an individual will work to gain access a stimulus.…”

“…Prior research has shown good correspondence between SPA and PR assessments of stimulus value. For example, DeLeon et al (2009) conducted preference assessments to identify stimuli of high, moderate, and low preference for four children with developmental disabilities. Each of these 12 stimuli (one from each of the three categories for each of the four children) was then subjected to PR analysis to validate the predictions of the preference assessment.…”

The Impact of Stimulus Presentation and Size on Preference

“…Their findings suggested that data collected during preference assessments may vary based on the amount of postselection duration of stimulus access. Studies such as this, and others (e.g., DeLeon, Frank, Gregory, & Allman, 2009), continue to demonstrate the dynamic nature of reinforcing stimuli, as well as the influence of various motivating operations (MOs) on moment-to-moment preference and choice.…”

Clinical Decision Making and Preference Assessment for Individuals With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

“…FOPA 5 Free operant preference assessment; MSWO 5 Multiple-stimulus without replacement; PWPA 5 Pairwise preference assessment; RRPA 5 Response-restriction preference assessment; SSPA 5 Single stimulus preference assessment. DeLeon, Frank, Gregory, & Allman, 2009;Didden & de Moor, 2004;Fleming et al, 2010;Lanner, Nichols, Field, & Hanson, 2009;Lee et al, 2008;Lee, Yu, Martin, & Martin, 2010). By contrast, methods that relied on engagement responses (FOPA and SSPA) frequently required an empty observation room during the assessment (e.g., Sautter, LeBlanc, & Gillett, 2008;Spevack et al, 2008;Thomson, Czarnecki, Martin, Yu, & Martin, 2007;Worsdell et al, 2002).…”