Using a Choice Assessment to Predict Reinforcer Effectiveness

Piazza, Cathleen C.; Fisher, Wayne W.; Hagopian, Louis P.; Bowman, Lynn G.; Toole, Lisa M.

doi:10.1901/jaba.1996.29-1

Cited by 172 publications

(152 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

145

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Preference assessments have been utilized primarily in the field of applied behavior focused on children with severe behavior or autism (e.g., Piazza, Fisher, Hagopian, Bowman, & Toole, 1996). However, within the field of animal welfare, preference assessments are becoming more common to help determine the value of different aspects of an animal's environment (e.g., Mehrkam & Dorey, 2014).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Utilizing Scents as Environmental Enrichment: Preference Assessment and Application with Rothschild Giraffe

Fay¹,

Miller²

2015

AB&C

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Utilizing Scents as Environmental Enrichment: Preference Assessment and Application with Rothschild Giraffe

Fay¹,

Miller²

2015

AB&C

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A second area of investigation on choice making used concurrent stimulus presentations as a means of generating hypotheses regarding the reinforcing properties of specific stimuli in the individual's environment (e.g., Derby et al, 1995;Fisher et al, 1992;Piazza, Fisher, Hagopian, Bowman, & Toole, 1996;Sigafoos & Dempsey, 1992;Smith, Iwata, & Shore, 1995). Reinforcer assessment procedures that provide choices among stimuli are considered to approximate natural contexts in which individuals have an opportunity to select between concurrently available items or activities (Northup, George, Jones, Broussard, & Vollmer, 1996).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, Fisher et al (1992) demonstrated that a forced-choice procedure resulted in more accurate identification of reinforcers than presenting single stimuli (e.g., Pace, Ivancic, Edwards, Iwata, & Page, 1985). Piazza et al (1996) further demonstrated that the relative preference for stimuli displayed by individuals during choice assessments could be used to predict the relative reinforcing value of those same stimuli. Thus, choice among concurrently available stimuli appears to have great potential as a reinforcer assessment procedure.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

An Analysis of Choice Making in the Assessment of Young Children With Severe Behavior Problems

Harding

Wacker

Berg

et al. 1999

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined how positive and negative reinforcement influenced time allocation, occurrence of problem behavior, and completion of parent instructions during a concurrent choice assessment with 2 preschool-aged children who displayed severe problem behavior in their homes. The children were given a series of concurrent choice options that varied availability of parent attention, access to preferred toys, and presentation of parent instructions. The results showed that both children consistently allocated their time to choice areas that included parent attention when no instructions were presented. When parent attention choice areas included the presentation of instructions, the children displayed differential patterns of behavior that appeared to be influenced by the presence or absence of preferred toys. The results extended previous applications of reinforcer assessment procedures by analyzing the relative influence of both positive and negative reinforcement within a concurrent-operants paradigm.DESCRIPTORS: choice making, preschool children, problem behaviorA number of applied investigations have evaluated the variables that influence choice with the goal of achieving better clinical outcomes in the reduction of problematic behavior (Fisher & Mazur, 1997). These studies have used a concurrent-operants arrangement in which two or more behaviors are concurrently available and each is correlated with an independent schedule of reinforcement. For example, investigators have examined various reinforcement dimensions (e.g., reinforcement rate, delay, and quality) to determine whether they have similar efThis research was supported by Grant R01-HD 29402 from the National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health. The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of that agency. The authors express their appreciation to the families who participated in this study. We also express our appreciation to Agnes DeRaad, Barbara Rankin, and Anjali Barretto for manuscript preparation.Jennifer Asmus is now at the University of Florida. Address correspondence and requests for reprints to Jay Harding, University Hospital School, Room 251, 100 Hawkins Drive, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242. fects in natural settings (e.g., Mace, Neef, Shade, & Mauro, 1994;Neef, Mace, & Shade, 1993;Neef, Shade, & Miller, 1994). As discussed by Neef et al. (1994), response alternatives in natural contexts are often asymmetrical across reinforcer dimensions. For example, an investigation by Neef et al. (1993) with students diagnosed as seriously emotionally disturbed showed that delays to reinforcement produced a bias toward the response alternative (choice) that provided more immediate access to reinforcement. A subsequent study by Neef et al. (1994) evaluated how specified reinforcer dimensions combined to influence the time allocated to two concurrent sets of math problems for youths with learning and behavior difficulties. The results showed that student resp...

show abstract

“…Including opportunities for choice in treatment programs may be beneficial because this strategy insures that highly preferred items are incorporated into programs (Lancioni, O'Reilly, & Emerson, 1996). Data from a number of studies suggest that participants' preference for the activities and reinforcers used in programs can alter treatment effectiveness (Foster-Johnson, Ferro, & Dunlap, 1994;Koegel, Dyer, & Bell, 1987;Piazza, Fisher, Hagopian, Bowman, & Toole, 1996), and choice making is often used to identify individual preferences (Fisher et al, 1992;.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Reinforcement Choice on Task Responding in Individuals With Developmental Disabilities

Lerman

Iwata

Rainville

et al. 1997

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of reinforcement choice on task performance were examined with 6 individuals who had been diagnosed with severe to profound mental retardation. Five highly preferred items were identified for each participant via stimulus preference assessments. Participants then were exposed to choice and no-choice conditions that were alternated within reversal and multielement designs. During choice sessions, participants were permitted to select between two preferred stimuli contingent on responding. During nochoice sessions, the therapist delivered a single item contingent on responding. Preference for the stimuli was held constant across conditions by yoking the items delivered during no-choice sessions to those selected during the immediately preceding choice sessions. All participants exhibited similar rates of responding across choice and no-choice conditions. These findings indicate that for individuals with severe disabilities, access to choice may not improve task performance when highly preferred items are already incorporated into instructional programs.

show abstract

Using a Choice Assessment to Predict Reinforcer Effectiveness

Cited by 172 publications

References 15 publications

Utilizing Scents as Environmental Enrichment: Preference Assessment and Application with Rothschild Giraffe

Utilizing Scents as Environmental Enrichment: Preference Assessment and Application with Rothschild Giraffe

An Analysis of Choice Making in the Assessment of Young Children With Severe Behavior Problems

Effects of Reinforcement Choice on Task Responding in Individuals With Developmental Disabilities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About