Suppr超能文献

使用活动作为刺激物评估无替换多选偏好评估方法。

Evaluation of the multiple-stimulus without replacement preference assessment method using activities as stimuli.

机构信息

University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 33 Teachers College, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588, USA.

出版信息

J Appl Behav Anal. 2009 Fall;42(3):563-74. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2009.42-563.

Abstract

The current study examined the accuracy of the multiple-stimulus without replacement (MSWO) preference assessment for identifying preferred common classroom activities as reinforcers with children with behavioral disorders. The accuracy of predictions from the MSWO regarding high, medium, and low stimulus preference was tested by providing contingent access to activities for completing math problems within an independent seatwork format. Overall, there was an interaction effect between preference ranking (high, medium, or low) and number of problems completed. The results confirm and extend previous findings regarding the accuracy of predictions with the MSWO. The findings also reveal, however, some individual differences that may account for instances in which student behavior did not conform to predictions of stimulus preference assessments.

摘要

本研究考察了多刺激无替换(MSWO)偏好评估在识别具有行为障碍的儿童的常见课堂活动偏好作为强化物的准确性。通过提供与完成独立座位作业格式内数学问题相关的活动的附带访问权限,测试了 MSWO 对高、中、低刺激偏好的预测的准确性。总体而言,偏好排序(高、中或低)和完成的问题数量之间存在交互效应。结果证实并扩展了之前关于 MSWO 预测准确性的发现。然而,这些发现也揭示了一些个体差异,这些差异可能解释了学生行为不符合刺激偏好评估预测的情况。

相似文献

2
Further refinement of video-based brief multiple-stimulus without replacement preference assessments.
J Appl Behav Anal. 2017 Jan;50(1):170-175. doi: 10.1002/jaba.358. Epub 2016 Oct 21.
3
Validity of the multiple-stimulus without replacement preference assessment for edible items.
J Appl Behav Anal. 2020 Jul;53(3):1688-1701. doi: 10.1002/jaba.703. Epub 2020 Apr 19.
5
Comparing the results of one-session, two-session, and three-session MSWO preference assessments.
J Appl Behav Anal. 2021 Apr;54(2):700-712. doi: 10.1002/jaba.808. Epub 2021 Jan 19.
6
Evaluating the use of computerized stimulus preference assessments in foster care.
J Appl Behav Anal. 2014 Fall;47(3):470-84. doi: 10.1002/jaba.148. Epub 2014 Jun 26.
7
The multiple-stimulus-without-replacement preference assessment tool and its predictive validity.
J Appl Behav Anal. 2024 Jan;57(1):226-235. doi: 10.1002/jaba.1037. Epub 2023 Nov 8.
8
Distributed and accumulated reinforcement arrangements: evaluations of efficacy and preference.
J Appl Behav Anal. 2014 Summer;47(2):293-313. doi: 10.1002/jaba.116. Epub 2014 Apr 30.
9
Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences.
J Appl Behav Anal. 1996 Winter;29(4):519-32; quiz 532-3. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-519.
10
An evaluation of preference stability within MSWO preference assessments for children with autism.
J Appl Behav Anal. 2023 Jun;56(3):638-655. doi: 10.1002/jaba.988. Epub 2023 May 11.

引用本文的文献

1
Using a Group Stimulus Preference Assessment to Design an Effective Group Contingency.
Behav Anal Pract. 2024 Oct 17;17(4):1008-1022. doi: 10.1007/s40617-024-01003-2. eCollection 2024 Dec.
3
Assessing Preference and Stability of Preference for Individuals with Neurocognitive Disorder.
Behav Anal Pract. 2021 Sep 30;15(3):782-795. doi: 10.1007/s40617-021-00648-7. eCollection 2022 Sep.
4
Stimulus Preference Assessment Decision-Making System (SPADS): A Decision-Making Model for Practitioners.
Behav Anal Pract. 2021 Apr 30;14(4):1144-1156. doi: 10.1007/s40617-020-00539-3. eCollection 2021 Dec.
5
Using Pictures Depicting App Icons to Conduct an MSWO Preference Assessment on a Tablet Device.
Behav Anal Pract. 2018 Oct 30;12(2):335-342. doi: 10.1007/s40617-018-00309-2. eCollection 2019 Jun.
7
Using Progressive Time Delay to Increase Levels of Peer Imitation During Sculpting Play.
J Autism Dev Disord. 2023 Feb;53(2):516-524. doi: 10.1007/s10803-018-3638-2.
8
Problem behavior during preference assessments: an empirical analysis and practical recommendations.
J Appl Behav Anal. 2010 Mar;43(1):137-41. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2010.43-137.

本文引用的文献

2
Evaluation of a brief multiple-stimulus preference assessment in a naturalistic context.
J Appl Behav Anal. 2000 Fall;33(3):353-7. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2000.33-353.
3
Further evaluation of the accuracy of reinforcer surveys: a systematic replication.
J Appl Behav Anal. 2000 Fall;33(3):335-8. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2000.33-335.
4
A comparison of verbal and tangible stimulus preference assessments.
J Appl Behav Anal. 2000 Fall;33(3):329-34. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2000.33-329.
5
Further evaluation of the multiple-stimulus preference assessment.
Res Dev Disabil. 2000 Jan-Feb;21(1):61-73. doi: 10.1016/s0891-4222(99)00030-x.
6
Further evaluation of low-ranked items in stimulus-choice preference assessments.
J Appl Behav Anal. 2000 Spring;33(1):105-8. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2000.33-105.
7
Relative versus absolute reinforcement effects: implications for preference assessments.
J Appl Behav Anal. 1999 Winter;32(4):479-93. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1999.32-479.
8
On the relative reinforcing effects of choice and differential consequences.
J Appl Behav Anal. 1997 Fall;30(3):423-38. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1997.30-423.
9
Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences.
J Appl Behav Anal. 1996 Winter;29(4):519-32; quiz 532-3. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-519.
10
Using a choice assessment to predict reinforcer effectiveness.
J Appl Behav Anal. 1996 Spring;29(1):1-9. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-1.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验