Marcus Autism Center and Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia 30329, USA.
J Appl Behav Anal. 2012 Winter;45(4):763-77. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2012.45-763.
Research has suggested that a daily multiple-stimulus-without-replacement (MSWO) preference assessment may be more sensitive to changes in preference than other assessment formats, thereby resulting in greater correspondence with reinforcer efficacy over time (DeLeon et al., 2001). However, most prior studies have measured reinforcer efficacy using rate of responding under single-operant arrangements and dense schedules or under concurrent-operants arrangements. An alternative measure of reinforcer efficacy involves the evaluation of responding under progressive-ratio (PR) schedules. In the present study, 7 participants were given a single paired-stimulus (PS) preference assessment followed by daily MSWO preference assessments. After each daily MSWO, participants responded for each stimulus on a PR schedule. The correspondence between break points and preferences, as assessed by the 2 assessment formats, was examined. Results demonstrated that both preference assessments did equally well at predicting reinforcer efficacy, although the PS more consistently identified the most effective reinforcer.
研究表明,与其他评估方式相比,每日多次无替换刺激偏好评估(MSWO)可能更能敏感地反映偏好变化,从而随着时间的推移与强化物效力更具一致性(DeLeon 等人,2001 年)。然而,大多数先前的研究都是使用单一操作性条件作用安排和密集时间表下的反应率,或在并发操作性条件作用安排下测量强化物效力。评估强化物效力的另一种方法涉及递增比率(PR)安排下的反应评估。在本研究中,7 名参与者接受了单次配对刺激(PS)偏好评估,随后进行了每日 MSWO 偏好评估。在每次每日 MSWO 之后,参与者根据 PR 安排对每个刺激进行反应。通过这两种评估方式,考察了转折点和偏好之间的一致性。结果表明,这两种偏好评估在预测强化物效力方面表现相当,尽管 PS 更一致地确定了最有效的强化物。