Suppr超能文献

强化物评估方法的比较:言语和图片选择程序的效用。

A comparison of reinforcer assessment methods: the utility of verbal and pictorial choice procedures.

作者信息

Northup J, George T, Jones K, Broussard C, Vollmer T R

机构信息

Department of Psychology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge 70803, USA.

出版信息

J Appl Behav Anal. 1996 Summer;29(2):201-12. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-201.

Abstract

We compared three methods of stimulus preference assessment for verbal children and specifically evaluated the utility of a verbal choice procedure for assessing relative reinforcer value. Using a token system, relative preference for five categories of reinforcers, representing 15 different stimuli, was assessed by three methods: a reinforcer survey, a verbal stimulus-choice questionnaire, and a pictorial stimulus-choice procedure. Results showed that the verbal and pictorial stimulus-choice assessments accurately identified high- and low-preference categories for 3 of 4 participants. Survey results alone often rated multiple categories as high preference, were less likely to identify low-preference categories, and were less likely to correspond with the results of a reinforcer assessment.

摘要

我们比较了三种针对能言语儿童的刺激偏好评估方法,并特别评估了言语选择程序在评估相对强化物价值方面的效用。使用代币系统,通过三种方法评估了代表15种不同刺激的五类强化物的相对偏好:强化物调查、言语刺激选择问卷和图片刺激选择程序。结果显示,言语和图片刺激选择评估准确地识别出了4名参与者中3人的高偏好和低偏好类别。仅调查结果往往将多个类别评为高偏好,识别低偏好类别的可能性较小,且不太可能与强化物评估结果相符。

相似文献

1
A comparison of reinforcer assessment methods: the utility of verbal and pictorial choice procedures.
J Appl Behav Anal. 1996 Summer;29(2):201-12. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-201.
3
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.
4
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.
5
Using pictures to assess reinforcers in individuals with developmental disabilities.
Behav Modif. 2003 Sep;27(4):470-83. doi: 10.1177/0145445503255602.
6
Assessing potency of high- and low-preference reinforcers with respect to response rate and response patterns.
J Appl Behav Anal. 2008 Summer;41(2):177-88. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2008.41-177.
7
The effect of reinforcer preference on functional analysis outcomes.
J Appl Behav Anal. 1998 Spring;31(1):79-90. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1998.31-79.
8
The effects of providing access to stimuli following choice making during vocal preference assessments.
J Appl Behav Anal. 2006 Winter;39(4):501-6. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2006.56-05.
9
Reinforcement magnitude: an evaluation of preference and reinforcer efficacy.
J Appl Behav Anal. 2008 Summer;41(2):203-20. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2008.41-203.
10
Comparison of verbal preference assessments in the presence and absence of the actual stimuli.
Res Dev Disabil. 2006 Nov-Dec;27(6):645-56. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2005.08.001. Epub 2005 Nov 2.

引用本文的文献

1
A Continuum of Methods for Assessing Preference for Conversation Topics.
Behav Anal Pract. 2023 Aug 15;17(1):306-315. doi: 10.1007/s40617-023-00842-9. eCollection 2024 Mar.
3
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.
4
The Effect of the Establishment of Conditioned Reinforcement for Reading Content on Second-Graders' Reading Achievement.
Behav Anal Pract. 2021 Jan 19;14(1):141-160. doi: 10.1007/s40617-020-00511-1. eCollection 2021 Mar.
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.
6
Exploring the Clinical Utility of a Stimulus Avoidance Assessment to Enhance a Relaxation Training Model.
Behav Anal Pract. 2014 Dec 24;8(1):57-61. doi: 10.1007/s40617-014-0035-y. eCollection 2015 May.
7
Examination of the influence of contingency on changes in reinforcer value.
J Appl Behav Anal. 2011 Fall;44(3):543-58. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2011.44-543.
9
An evaluation of stimulant medication on the reinforcing effects of play.
J Appl Behav Anal. 2008 Spring;41(1):143-7. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2008.41-143.
10
The effects of providing access to stimuli following choice making during vocal preference assessments.
J Appl Behav Anal. 2006 Winter;39(4):501-6. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2006.56-05.

本文引用的文献

1
Programming maintenance after correspondence training interventions with children.
J Appl Behav Anal. 1986 Summer;19(2):215-9. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1986.19-215.
2
Developing correspondence between the non-verbal and verbal behavior of preschool children.
J Appl Behav Anal. 1968 Winter;1(4):267-81. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1968.1-267.
4
Reinforcer variation: implications for motivating developmentally disabled children.
J Appl Behav Anal. 1981 Fall;14(3):345-50. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1981.14-345.
5
Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals.
J Appl Behav Anal. 1985 Fall;18(3):249-55. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1985.18-249.
6
A practical strategy for ongoing reinforcer assessment.
J Appl Behav Anal. 1989 Summer;22(2):171-9. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1989.22-171.
7
The utility of verbal and behavioral assessments of value.
J Exp Anal Behav. 1990 Nov;54(3):173-84. doi: 10.1901/jeab.1990.54-173.
8
Social validity assessments: is current practice state of the art?
J Appl Behav Anal. 1991 Summer;24(2):189-204. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1991.24-189.
9
A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities.
J Appl Behav Anal. 1992 Summer;25(2):491-8. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1992.25-491.

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