Piazza C C, Fisher W W, Hagopian L P, Bowman L G, Toole L
Neurobehavioral Unit, Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore, Maryland 21205, USA.
J Appl Behav Anal. 1996 Spring;29(1):1-9. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-1.
A choice assessment has been found to be a more accurate method of identifying preferences than is single-item presentation. However, it is not clear whether the effectiveness of reinforcement varies positively with the degree of preference (i.e., whether the relative preference based on the results of a choice assessment predicts relative reinforcer effectiveness). In the current study, we attempted to address this question by categorizing stimuli as high, middle, and low preference based on the results of a choice assessment, and then comparing the reinforcing effectiveness of these stimuli using a concurrent operants paradigm. High-preference stimuli consistently functioned as reinforcers for all 4 clients. Middle-preference stimuli functioned as reinforcers for 2 clients, but only when compared with low-preference stimuli. Low-preference stimuli did not function as reinforcers when compared to high- and middle-preference stimuli. These results suggest that a choice assessment can be used to predict the relative reinforcing value of various stimuli, which, in turn, may help to improve programs for clients with severe to profound disabilities.
与单项呈现相比，选择评估已被证明是一种更准确的识别偏好的方法。然而，尚不清楚强化的有效性是否与偏好程度呈正相关（即基于选择评估结果的相对偏好是否能预测相对强化物有效性）。在当前研究中，我们试图通过根据选择评估结果将刺激分为高、中、低偏好三类，然后使用并发操作范式比较这些刺激的强化效果来解决这个问题。高偏好刺激始终对所有4名客户起到强化物的作用。中等偏好刺激对2名客户起到强化物的作用，但仅在与低偏好刺激相比时才如此。与高偏好和中等偏好刺激相比，低偏好刺激不起强化物的作用。这些结果表明，选择评估可用于预测各种刺激的相对强化价值，这反过来可能有助于改进针对重度至极重度残疾客户的项目。
