使用渐进比率程序评估绝对和相对强化物价值。
Evaluation of absolute and relative reinforcer value using progressive-ratio schedules.
作者信息
Francisco Monica T, Borrero John C, Sy Jolene R
机构信息
University of the Pacific.
出版信息
J Appl Behav Anal. 2008 Summer;41(2):189-202. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2008.41-189.
Abstract
We evaluated behavior exhibited by individuals with developmental disabilities using progressive-ratio (PR) schedules. High- and low-preference stimuli were determined based on the results of a paired-stimulus preference assessment and were evaluated in subsequent reinforcer and PR assessments using concurrent and single schedules of presentation. In Experiment 1, results showed that for 2 of 3 participants, stimuli determined to be low-preference functioned as reinforcers when evaluated independent of high-preference stimuli. Further, the results from Experiment 2 showed that low-preference stimuli also functioned as reinforcers under gradually increasing PR requirements. Results suggest that for cases in which a high-preference stimulus is unavailable or impractical, the contingent delivery of relatively less preferred stimuli may maintain appropriate behavior, even as schedule requirements increase.
摘要
我们使用渐进比率（PR）程序评估了发育障碍个体表现出的行为。根据配对刺激偏好评估的结果确定高偏好和低偏好刺激，并在随后的强化物和PR评估中使用同时呈现和单一呈现程序进行评估。在实验1中，结果表明，对于3名参与者中的2名，被确定为低偏好的刺激在独立于高偏好刺激进行评估时起到了强化物的作用。此外，实验2的结果表明，在PR要求逐渐增加的情况下，低偏好刺激也起到了强化物的作用。结果表明，在高偏好刺激不可用或不切实际的情况下，即使程序要求增加，相对不太偏好的刺激的偶然呈现也可能维持适当的行为。
相似文献
1
Evaluation of absolute and relative reinforcer value using progressive-ratio schedules.使用渐进比率程序评估绝对和相对强化物价值。
J Appl Behav Anal. 2008 Summer;41(2):189-202. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2008.41-189.
2
Preference for reinforcers under progressive- and fixed-ratio schedules: a comparison of single and concurrent arrangements.累进比率和固定比率时间表下对强化物的偏好：单一安排与并发安排的比较
J Appl Behav Anal. 2008 Summer;41(2):163-76. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2008.41-163.
3
Further examination of factors that influence preference for positive versus negative reinforcement.进一步研究影响对正强化与负强化偏好的因素。
J Appl Behav Anal. 2007 Spring;40(1):25-44. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2007.151-05.
4
Assessing potency of high- and low-preference reinforcers with respect to response rate and response patterns.评估高偏好和低偏好强化物在反应率和反应模式方面的效力。
J Appl Behav Anal. 2008 Summer;41(2):177-88. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2008.41-177.
5
Reinforcement magnitude: an evaluation of preference and reinforcer efficacy.强化强度：偏好与强化物效能的评估
J Appl Behav Anal. 2008 Summer;41(2):203-20. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2008.41-203.
6
Emergence of reinforcer preference as a function of schedule requirements and stimulus similarity.强化物偏好作为时间表要求和刺激相似性的函数而出现。
J Appl Behav Anal. 1997 Fall;30(3):439-49. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1997.30-439.
7
Using a choice assessment to predict reinforcer effectiveness.使用选择评估来预测强化物的有效性。
J Appl Behav Anal. 1996 Spring;29(1):1-9. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-1.
8
Examination of the influence of contingency on changes in reinforcer value.考察应急性对强化物价值变化的影响。
J Appl Behav Anal. 2011 Fall;44(3):543-58. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-543.
9
Including unfamiliar stimuli in preference assessments for young children with autism.将不熟悉的刺激物纳入自闭症儿童偏好评估中。
J Appl Behav Anal. 2013 Fall;46(3):689-94. doi: 10.1002/jaba.56. Epub 2013 Jul 10.
10
Reinforcing efficacy of interactions with preferred and nonpreferred staff under progressive-ratio schedules.在累进比率时间表下增强与偏好和非偏好工作人员互动的效果。
J Appl Behav Anal. 2008 Summer;41(2):221-5. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2008.41-221.
引用本文的文献
1
Examining the reinforcing value of stimuli within social and non-social contexts in children with and without high-functioning autism.考察高功能自闭症儿童和普通儿童在社会和非社会情境下刺激的强化价值。
Autism. 2017 Oct;21(7):881-895. doi: 10.1177/1362361316655035. Epub 2016 Jul 1.
2
Correspondence between single versus daily preference assessment outcomes and reinforcer efficacy under progressive-ratio schedules.单项偏好评估结果与递增比率强化效能之间的对应关系与每日偏好评估结果的关系。
J Appl Behav Anal. 2012 Winter;45(4):763-77. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2012.45-763.
3
The Role of Context in the Evaluation of Reinforcer Efficacy: Implications for the Preference Assessment Outcomes.情境在强化物效能评估中的作用：对偏好评估结果的启示
Res Autism Spectr Disord. 2012 Jan;6(1):158-167. doi: 10.1016/j.rasd.2011.04.001.
4
Examination of the influence of contingency on changes in reinforcer value.考察应急性对强化物价值变化的影响。
J Appl Behav Anal. 2011 Fall;44(3):543-58. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-543.
5
Concurrent reinforcement schedules for problem behavior and appropriate behavior: experimental applications of the matching law.问题行为与恰当行为的同时强化时间表：匹配律的实验应用。
J Exp Anal Behav. 2010 May;93(3):455-69. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2010.93-455.
6
On the correspondence between preference assessment outcomes and progressive-ratio schedule assessments of stimulus value.偏好评估结果与刺激价值递增比率评估之间的一致性。
J Appl Behav Anal. 2009 Fall;42(3):729-33. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2009.42-729.
7
Consumption and response output as a function of unit price: manipulation of cost and benefit components.消费和反应输出作为单位价格的函数：成本和收益成分的操纵。
J Appl Behav Anal. 2009 Fall;42(3):609-25. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2009.42-609.
8
The effects of varied versus constant high-, medium-, and low-preference stimuli on performance.不同的高、中、低偏好刺激与表现之间的关系。
J Appl Behav Anal. 2009 Summer;42(2):321-6. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2009.42-321.
9
Evaluating preference assessments for use in the general education population.评估适用于普通教育人群的偏好评估。
J Appl Behav Anal. 2008 Fall;41(3):447-51. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2008.41-447.
10
On the applied use of progressive-ratio schedules of reinforcement.关于强化渐进比率程序表的应用
J Appl Behav Anal. 2008 Summer;41(2):155-61. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2008.41-155.
本文引用的文献
1
Preference for reinforcers under progressive- and fixed-ratio schedules: a comparison of single and concurrent arrangements.累进比率和固定比率时间表下对强化物的偏好：单一安排与并发安排的比较
J Appl Behav Anal. 2008 Summer;41(2):163-76. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2008.41-163.
2
Tests of behavioral-economic assessments of relative reinforcer efficacy: economic substitutes.相对强化物效能的行为经济学评估测试：经济替代物
J Exp Anal Behav. 2007 Mar;87(2):219-40. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2007.80-06.
3
Reinforcement magnitude and pausing on progressive-ratio schedules.递增比例方案中的强化幅度和停顿。
J Exp Anal Behav. 1992 Sep;58(2):377-88. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1992.58-377.
4
Preference for reinforcers under varying schedule arrangements: A behavioral economic analysis.在不同的时间表安排下对强化物的偏好：一种行为经济学分析。
J Appl Behav Anal. 1994 Winter;27(4):597-606. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1994.27-597.
5
Replacing relative reinforcing efficacy with behavioral economic demand curves.用行为经济需求曲线取代相对强化效力。
J Exp Anal Behav. 2006 Jan;85(1):73-93. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2006.102-04.
6
A preliminary analysis of adaptive responding under open and closed economies.开放经济与封闭经济下适应性反应的初步分析。
J Appl Behav Anal. 2005 Fall;38(3):335-48. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2005.85-04.
7
Interaction of reinforcement schedules, a behavioral prosthesis, and work-related behavior in adults with mental retardation.强化程序、行为辅助装置与成年智障者工作相关行为之间的相互作用。
J Appl Behav Anal. 2005 Summer;38(2):163-76. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2005.9-04.
8
Effects of increment size and reinforcer volume on progressive ratio performance.增量大小和强化物量对渐进比率表现的影响。
J Exp Anal Behav. 1963 Jul;6(3):387-92. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1963.6-387.
9
Progressive ratio as a measure of reward strength.渐进比率作为奖励强度的一种衡量方法。
Science. 1961 Sep 29;134(3483):943-4. doi: 10.1126/science.134.3483.943.
10
Assessing reinforcers under progressive schedule requirements.在渐进式时间表要求下评估强化物。
J Appl Behav Anal. 2001 Summer;34(2):145-66. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2001.34-145.
Zotero 插件