Suppr超能文献

关于临床医生在教学过程中改变强化物的原因及方式的调查

A Survey of Why and How Clinicians Change Reinforcers during Teaching Sessions.

作者信息

Morris Samuel L, Conine Daniel E, Slanzi Crystal M, Kronfli Faris R, Etchison Hannah M

机构信息

Department of Psychology, Louisiana State University, 236 Audubon Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803 USA.

Department of Learning Sciences, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA USA.

出版信息

Behav Anal Pract. 2023 Aug 29;17(3):815-830. doi: 10.1007/s40617-023-00847-4. eCollection 2024 Sep.

Abstract

UNLABELLED

Preference assessments are used to make data-based decisions about which stimuli to use as reinforcers but they can be challenging to conduct frequently enough to avoid problems related to momentary shifts in preference and reinforcer efficacy. It remains unclear whether, why, and how clinicians change reinforcers on a momentary basis. Therefore, this study aimed to determine common reasons for, and methods of, changing reinforcers in practice. Most respondents indicated that they often change reinforcers during a session, do so when the client mands for or attends to different stimuli or refuses the current stimulus, and identify the new reinforcer based on recent client behaviors (e.g., mands) or by providing an informal choice between stimuli. Responses did not vary meaningfully based on respondent credentials, client characteristics, or service goals. Implications for clinical practice as well as future research on methods of momentary preference assessment and reinforcer identification are discussed.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40617-023-00847-4.

摘要

未标注

偏好评估用于基于数据决定使用哪些刺激物作为强化物,但要足够频繁地进行以避免与偏好和强化物效果的瞬时变化相关的问题可能具有挑战性。目前尚不清楚临床医生是否、为何以及如何在瞬时基础上改变强化物。因此,本研究旨在确定实践中改变强化物的常见原因和方法。大多数受访者表示,他们经常在一次治疗过程中改变强化物,当客户要求或关注不同刺激物或拒绝当前刺激物时会这样做,并根据客户最近的行为(如要求)或通过在刺激物之间提供非正式选择来确定新的强化物。根据受访者的资质、客户特征或服务目标,回答没有显著差异。讨论了对临床实践的影响以及未来关于瞬时偏好评估和强化物识别方法的研究。

补充信息

在线版本包含可在10.1007/s40617-023-00847-4获取的补充材料。

相似文献

1
A Survey of Why and How Clinicians Change Reinforcers during Teaching Sessions.
Behav Anal Pract. 2023 Aug 29;17(3):815-830. doi: 10.1007/s40617-023-00847-4. eCollection 2024 Sep.
2
A review of methods of assessing preference for social stimuli.
J Appl Behav Anal. 2023 Apr;56(2):416-427. doi: 10.1002/jaba.981. Epub 2023 Mar 15.
3
How do reinforcers affect choice? Preference pulses after responses and reinforcers.
J Exp Anal Behav. 2017 Jul;108(1):17-38. doi: 10.1002/jeab.260. Epub 2017 Jun 1.
4
A model for discriminating reinforcers in time and space.
Behav Processes. 2016 Jun;127:62-73. doi: 10.1016/j.beproc.2016.03.010. Epub 2016 Mar 22.
6
Does overall reinforcer rate affect discrimination of time-based contingencies?
J Exp Anal Behav. 2016 May;105(3):393-408. doi: 10.1002/jeab.204. Epub 2016 May 6.
7
Efficacy of Edible and Leisure Reinforcers with Domestic Dogs.
Animals (Basel). 2023 Sep 30;13(19):3073. doi: 10.3390/ani13193073.
8
A review of positive conditioned reinforcement.
J Exp Anal Behav. 1962 Oct;5(4 Suppl):543-97. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1962.5-s543.
10
Every reinforcer counts: reinforcer magnitude and local preference.
J Exp Anal Behav. 2003 Jul;80(1):95-129. doi: 10.1901/jeab.2003.80-95.

引用本文的文献

1
Using Risk Ratios to Quantify Potential Behavior-Environment Relations.
Perspect Behav Sci. 2023 Nov 22;47(1):167-196. doi: 10.1007/s40614-023-00391-0. eCollection 2024 Mar.

本文引用的文献

1
A review of methods of assessing preference for social stimuli.
J Appl Behav Anal. 2023 Apr;56(2):416-427. doi: 10.1002/jaba.981. Epub 2023 Mar 15.
2
Behavior analytic jargon does not seem to influence treatment acceptability ratings.
J Appl Behav Anal. 2022 Oct;55(4):1294-1305. doi: 10.1002/jaba.953. Epub 2022 Sep 21.
3
A preference analysis of reinforcer variation and choice.
J Appl Behav Anal. 2021 Jun;54(3):1062-1074. doi: 10.1002/jaba.835. Epub 2021 May 14.
4
State of Current Training for Severe Problem Behavior: A Survey.
Behav Anal Pract. 2020 May 6;14(1):11-19. doi: 10.1007/s40617-020-00424-z. eCollection 2021 Mar.
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
A comparison of methods for assessing preference for social interactions.
J Appl Behav Anal. 2020 Apr;53(2):918-937. doi: 10.1002/jaba.692. Epub 2020 Mar 5.
7
Board Certified Behavior Analysts' Supervisory Practices of Trainees: Survey Results and Recommendations.
Behav Anal Pract. 2019 Jun 11;12(3):536-546. doi: 10.1007/s40617-019-00367-0. eCollection 2019 Sep.
8
Evaluating the stability, validity, and utility of hierarchies produced by the Social Interaction Preference Assessment.
J Appl Behav Anal. 2020 Jan;53(1):522-535. doi: 10.1002/jaba.610. Epub 2019 Jul 10.
9
Evaluating preference for and reinforcing efficacy of fruits and vegetables compared with salty and sweet foods.
J Appl Behav Anal. 2020 Jan;53(1):385-401. doi: 10.1002/jaba.594. Epub 2019 Jun 20.
10
Rethinking Response Rates: New Evidence of Little Relationship Between Survey Response Rates and Nonresponse Bias.
Eval Rev. 2019 Oct;43(5):307-330. doi: 10.1177/0193841X18807719. Epub 2018 Dec 23.

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