403 BEH 5004 Unit #3 PP SG4A DeLeon - CourseWebs
Transcript of 403 BEH 5004 Unit #3 PP SG4A DeLeon - CourseWebs
1
1
Arranging Reinforcement Systems in Applied Settings:Lessons from Basic and Applied Research
Iser G. DeLeon, Ph.D., BCBAThe Kennedy Krieger Institute and
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
2
Overview
• Identifying stimulus preferences• Validating preference assessment results (reinforcer
assessments)• Examining shifts in stimulus preferences• Examining determinants of stimulus preferences
– Stimulus variation and choice– Motivational operations– Methods of shifting preferences
• The use of praise and social reinforcers• Effects of extrinsic reinforcement on intrinsic motivation• Additional topics in reinforcer use and assessment
– Token systems– Behavioral economics– Noncontingent reinforcement
3
Identifying Stimulus Preferences
4
Objectives
1. Understand the purpose of systematic preferenceassessments.
2. Understanding how to conduct various forms ofpreference assessment.
3. Understand the relative advantages anddisadvantages of various forms of preferenceassessments.
4. Know what is meant by false positive and falsenegative outcomes in preference assessments.
5. Understand the situations under which youwould use one form of assessment or another.
5
Identifying Stimulus Preferences
• Client or caregiver report– asking the person or those in charge of his/her
care to list preferred items and activities• Scales (“Rank these items…”)• Surveys (“What items does…”)• Inventories/Checklists (“Does _____ enjoy…”)
– The most efficient method (least time-consuming)
6Fisher, W.W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman. L. G. and Amari, A. (1996). Integrating caregiver report with a systematic choice assessment toenhance reinforcer identification. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 101, 15–25.
2
7 8
9 10
11 12
Identifying Stimulus Preferences
• What do caregivers of persons with IDDbelieve those in their care prefer?
• Matson et al. (1999)– Constructed a list of 92 items– Asked residential staff to indicate the items
most preferred by individuals they worked with– N = 185, severe or profound MR
3
13Matson, J. L. Bielecki, J., Mayville, E. A., Smalls, Y., Bamburg, J. W., & Baglio, C. S. (1999). The development of a reinforcer choiceassessment scale for persons with severe and profound mental retardation. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 20, 379-384.
14
Assessing PreferencesWhat types of procedures/tools do you use to assess the preferences of the individuals you work with?(Check all that apply):
Informally asking the individual what they like Informally observing the individual Asking parents/caregivers/significant others what the individual likes Formal (e.g., published) parent/caregiver survey (e.g., the RAISD; Fisher, Piazza, Bowman, & Amari,1996) Direct observation- present stimuli one at a time, record duration of engagement with each item Direct observation- present multiple stimuli, record duration of engagement with each item Single-stimulus presentation, record approach responses (Pace, Ivancic, Edwards, Iwata, & Page, 1985) Paired-stimulus presentation, record approach responses (Fisher, Piazza, Bowman, Hagopian, Owens, &Slevin, 1992) Multiple-stimulus with replacement presentation, record approach responses (Windsor, Piche, & Locke,1994) Multiple-stimulus without replacement presentation, record approach responses (DeLeon & Iwata, 1996) Verbal preference assessment (Cohen-Almeida, Graff, & Ahearn, 2000; Northup, 2000; Northup,George, Jones, Broussard, & Vollmer, 1996) Pictorial preference assessment (Graff & Gibson, 2003; Northup, George, Jones, Broussard, & Vollmer,1996)Other (describe)_________________________________________
Survey on Assessing Preferences in Individualswith Disabilities (Graff & DeLeon, 2001)
15
Preliminary Results
• N=278• Setting
– Residential Settings: 20%– Public Schools: 30%– Community-based settings: 50%
• Education– Bachelor’s Degree: 20%– Master’s Degree: 70%– Doctoral Degree: 10%
16
Preliminary Results
• Informal Assessment procedures– Informally asking the individual what they like– Informally observing the individual– Asking parents/caregivers/significant others
what the individual likes• 90% of respondents used ONLY these
techniques• 99% of public school teachers used ONLY
these techniques
17
ASR #1
• One problem with client and caregiverreport methods of identifying preferences isthat they are very time consuming.– 1 = True– 2 = False
18
ASR #2
• The Reinforcer Assessment for Individualswith Severe Disabilities (RAISD) is meantto be used by itself to identify reinforcers.– 1 = True– 2 = False
4
19
ASR #3
• According to the survey conducted by Graffand DeLeon (2001), 90% of respondentsonly used informal assessment procedures.– 1 = true– 2 = false
20
ASR #4
• According to the survey conducted by Graffand DeLeon (2001), public school teacherswere more likely to use systematicpreferences assessments than caregivers inother settings.– 1 = true– 2 = false
21
Identifying Stimulus Preferences
• How accurate are indirect methods?– Several studies have gauged accuracy– Typical method:
1. Survey verbal self-report or caregiver report2. Conduct systematic preference assessment3. Find discrepancies and determine which method
made more accurate predictions
22
Identifying Stimulus Preferences
Green, Reid, White, Halford, Brittain, & Gardner (1988)- Compared results of a staff opinion survey (5 pt. Likert
Scale: 1=least preferred; 5= most preferred) to asystematic preference assessment
- Rank ordered the stimuli based upon both approaches- Found near zero correlation to what was approached
and what staff predicted- Presented these stimuli contingently upon occurrence of
a response- Found that stimuli ranked high on the systematic
assessment functioned more reliably as reinforcersthan those ranked high on a staff opinion survey
23Green, C. W., Reid, D. H., White, L. K., Halford, R. C., Brittain, D. P., & Gardner, S. M. (1988). Identifying reinforcers for persons withprofound handicaps: Staff opinion versus systematic assessment of preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 31-43.
1 ------------------------------------------------ 4Physical guidance Independent Response
24
Identifying Stimulus Preferences
• Rank-order correlation coefficients(Spearman’s rho; Kendalll’s tau):– Quantification of the relation between two
variables ranked on an ordinal scale– Value of the coefficient can range from
-1.0 to 1.0• 1.0 = strong positive correlation (as one increases,
the other tends to increase)• 0.0 = no correlation (no systematic relation between
the two ranks)• -1.0 = strong negative relation (as one increases, the
other tends to decrease)
5
25
1.0=ρ77G
66F
55E
44D
33C
22B
11A
Rank2Rank 1Item
0.7=ρ67G
56F
75E
34D
13C
42B
21A
Rank2Rank 1Item
-1.0=ρ17G
26F
35E
44D
53C
62B
71A
Rank2Rank 1Item
0.0=ρ57G
46F
25E
64D
13C
72B
31A
Rank2Rank 1Item
26
Identifying Stimulus Preferences
• Cote, Thompson, Hanley, & McKerchar (2007)– Compared results of a teacher opinion survey to a
systematic preference assessment for 9 preschoolerswith developmental disabilities
– Rank ordered the stimuli based upon both approaches– Found a strong positive correlation between rankings
generated by these assessments in only 1/9 cases– Negative correlation between assessments in 5/9 cases– Presented these stimuli contingently upon occurrence of
a response– Systematic assessment identified more effective
reinforcers than the teacher survey
27
Northup (2000)– 20 individuals with ADHD– “Do you like ‘X’ a little, a lot, or not at all”– Reinforcer survey- math worksheet– False positives (high preference items that did not
function as reinforcers): 29%– False negatives (low preference items that did function
as reinforcers): 13%– Total accuracy of verbal preference assessments:
57%
Identifying Stimulus Preferences
28
ASR #5
• The typical method used to gauge accuracy ofindirect methods includes the following steps:– 1 = survey verbal or caregiver reports, compare to other
caregiver reports, find discrepancies and determinewhich method made more accurate prediction
– 2 = conduct systematic preference assessment, compareto other systematic preference assessment, finddiscrepancies and determine which method made moreaccurate prediction
– 3 = survey verbal or caregiver reports, compare tosystematic preference assessment, find discrepanciesand determine which method made more accurateprediction
29
ASR #6
• Which methods for identifying stimuluspreference have resulted in theidentification of stimuli that functionedmore reliably as reinforcer?– 1 = staff opinion survey– 2 = teacher survey– 3 = systematic preference assessment
30
ASR #7
• If a survey of 2 individuals’opinions of a student’spreferences produced theresults on the right, thecorrelation coefficientwould be– 1 = close to -1.0– 2 = close to 0.0– 3 = between -.5 and 0.0– 4 = close to 1.0
57G
76F
65E
44D
23C
32B
11A
Rater 2Rater 1Item
6
31
ASR #8
• Within the context of identifying stimuluspreferences, a false positive is:– 1 = An item that is ranked as high preference
and does functions as a reinforcer– 2 = An item that is ranked as high preference,
but does not function as a reinforcer– 3 = An item ranked as low preference, but does
function as a reinforcer
32
ASR #9
• Within the context of identifying stimuluspreferences, a false negative is:– 1 = An item that is ranked as high preference,
but does not function as a reinforcer– 2 = An item ranked as low preference, but does
function as a reinforcer– 3 = An item that is ranked as low preference
and does not function as a reinforcer
33
Identifying Stimulus Preferences
• Caregiver and self-report are not always the bestindicators of reinforcement effects
• What are alternatives?• Naturalistic (in-vivo) direct observation
procedures– collecting data to find high probability behaviors which
may be used as reinforcers and/or recording a person'sreaction to environmental stimuli.
– Loosely derived from Premack principle –• high probability responses, when made available contingent on
low probability responses will increase the low probabilityresponses.
– Direct observation is more time-consuming but morevalid than interviews, etc.
34
Identifying Stimulus Preferences
• Reinforcer Sampling – systematic exposureto a variety of stimuli or activities andmeasuring which are preferred– Better predict reinforcer value than interviews
and paper-and-pencil measures– May be required when more naturalistic
observation procedures fail to yieldinformation.
35
Identifying Stimulus Preferences
• Selection-based preference assessments -items are presented systematically toproduce preference hierarchies– Variations differ with respect to how many
items are presented during a given trial– Preference hierarchies are derived from
calculations of the number of times a stimulusis select given the number of times each isavailable
36
Identifying Stimulus Preferences
• Single-Item/Approach Method– AKA single-stimulus assessment– Place items, one at a time in front of the person
• Typically, 10 trials per item
– Measure whether or not they approach the item– Hierarchy based on the number of times an
item was approached given the number of timesit was available:
• Approaches/trials
7
37Pace, G. M., Ivancic, M. T., Edwards, G. L., Iwata, B. A., & Page, T. J. (1985). Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer valuewith profoundly retarded individuals. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 249-255.
38
Identifying Stimulus Preferences
• Paired-choice preference assessment– AKA forced-choice preference assessment– Place items, two at a time in front of the person
• Trials continue until each item has been paired with each otheritem once (all possible pair-wise permutations)
• Number of trials = n (n-1) / 2– for example: (5 x 4) / 2 = 10 trials
– Record which of the two items they approach– Hierarchy based on the number of times an item was
approached given the number of times it was available:• Approaches/trials
39Fisher, W. Piazza, C. C. Bowman, L. G. Hagopian, L. P. Owens, J. C. & Slevin, I. (1992). A comparison of two approaches foridentifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,. 25, 491-498. 40
Fisher, W. Piazza, C. C. Bowman, L. G. Hagopian, L. P. Owens, J. C. & Slevin, I. (1992). A comparison of two approaches foridentifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,. 25, 491-498.
41
Identifying Stimulus Preferences
• Multiple-Stimulus Preference Assessments– Present all items in the array simultaneously
• Participants select one from among all items duringeach trial
– Variations:• With replacement –
– Selected items are returned to the array– provides info on the single most preferred stimulus
• Without replacement –– Selected items are not returned to the array– provides more information about preferences among the
array
42DeLeon, I. G., & Iwata, B. A. (1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journalof Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 519-532.
8
43
Identifying Stimulus Preferences
• Relative advantages and disadvantages ofselection-based methods:– Single stimulus
• Simple procedure; can incorporate as many items as you like• May be prone to false positives
– Paired-choice• May be more sensitive to relative preferences; thus useful
when you want a larger selection of predicted reinforcers• Time-consuming (length expands dramatically with the
number of items assessed)– Multiple stimulus
• Can be very brief; thus useful for daily use• Number of items included might be limited by person’s
abilities.
44
ASR #10
• In naturalistic observation approaches toidentifying preferences, data is collected onhigh probability behaviors and/or a person'sreaction to environmental stimuli.– 1 = true– 2 = false
45
ASR #11
• According to the Premack principle, whenhigh probability responses are deliveredcontingent on low probability responses, thefuture likelihood of the low probabilityresponse will decrease.– 1 = true– 2 = false
46
ASR #12
• In which of the following preferenceassessments are all stimuli presented in anarray simultaneously:– 1 = Paired-choice preference assessment– 2 = Single-stimulus preference assessment– 3 = Multiple-stimulus preference assessment
47
ASR #13
• According to Fisher and colleagues (1992),which preference assessment methodresulted in greater differentiation amongstimuli and better predicted relativereinforcer efficacy?– 1 = Paired-stimulus preference assessment– 2 = Single-stimulus preference assessment
48
ASR #14
• Which of these systematic preferenceassessment methods is the least timeconsuming?– 1 = Single-stimulus assessments– 2 = Paired-stimulus assessments– 3 = Multiple stimulus assessments
9
49
ASR #15
• Which of these systematic preferenceassessment methods may be best suited forindividuals with very limited abilities whomay have difficulty scanning arrays?– 1 = Single-stimulus assessments– 2 = Paired-stimulus assessments– 3 = Multiple stimulus assessments
50
ASR #16
• Which of these systematic preferenceassessment methods is most useful whenyou need sensitive information on relativepreferences among a large number ofstimuli?– 1 = Single-stimulus assessments– 2 = Paired-stimulus assessments– 3 = Multiple stimulus assessments
51
ASR #17
• In which of the following preferenceassessments is most likely to produce falsepositives because individuals may selectanything placed in front of them?– 1 = Paired-choice preference assessment– 2 = Single-stimulus preference assessment– 3 = Multiple-stimulus preference assessment
52
ASR #18
• Which of the following is a potentialdisadvantage of the multiple-stimuluspreference assessment?– 1 = May be limited in the number of stimuli
you can assess– 2 = May be relatively insensitive to relative
preferences– 3 = Can be very time consuming
53
Identifying Stimulus Preferences
• Duration-based preference assessments -items are presented to the individual and theproportion of time spent engaging the itemsis recorded– Single item presentation - each item is
presented individually several items– Free operant (or multiple item) assessments -
all items are presented simultaneously
54DeLeon, I.G., Iwata, B.A., Conners, J. & Wallace, M.D. (1999). Examination of ambiguous stimulus preferences with duration-basedmeasures. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 111-114.
10
55Roane, H. S., Vollmer, T. R., Ringdahl, J. E., & Marcus, B. A. (1998). Evaluation of a brief stimulus preference assessment. Journal ofApplied Behavior Analysis, 31, 605-620.
56
ASR #19
• According to the results of the studyconducted by DeLeon, Iwata, Conners, andWallace (1999), duration-based assessmentsmay help to clarify ambiguous selection-based assessment results.– 1 = true– 2 = false
57
ASR #20
• What problem is inherent in preferenceassessment methods in which all items areequally and continuously available?
– 1 = The person chooses multiple stimuli onevery occasion
– 2 = The person may choose a differentstimulus on every occasion
– 3 = The person may choose the same stimuluson every occasion
– 4 = The person may never choose a stimulus
58
ASR #21
• According to the results of the studyconducted by Roane, Vollmer, Ringdahl,and Marcus (1999), the length of time aperson engages a stimulus in not related tohow effective a reinforcer the stimulus is– 1 = true– 2 = false
59
Identifying Stimulus Preferences
• Competing stimulus preference assessments– Duration based assessments used also to
determine the extent to which stimuli displaceproblem behavior
– Two measures simultaneously:• Stimulus engagement• Problem behavior
– Stimuli selected based on the combinedmeasures
60Piazza, C. C., Fisher, W. W., Hanley, G. P., Hilker, K., & Derby, K. M. (1996). A preliminary procedure for predicting the positive andnegative effects of reinforcement-based procedures. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 137-152.
11
61
Identifying Stimulus Preferences
• Competing stimulus assessments– Typically used for automatically reinforced
problem behavior.– Are they useful for other functional relations?
62Fisher, W. W. O'Connor, J. T. Kurtz, P. F. DeLeon, I. G. & Gotjen, D. L. (2000). The effects of noncontingent delivery of high- and low-preference stimuli on attention-maintained destructive behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 79-83.
63
Identifying Stimulus Preferences
• Typical durations are 2-5 minutes• How do you know your sampling parameters are
appropriately representative?• Johnston & Pennypacker (1993):
1. Sample the behavior during intervals of varyinglength
2. Note the variability associated with each3. Select the interval for which reductions in variability
were either miniscule or unimportant
64DeLeon, I.G., Toole, L. M., Gutshall, K. A., & Bowman, L. G. (2005). Individualized sampling parameters for behavioral observations:Enhancing the predictive validity of competing stimulus assessments. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 46, 440-455.
65DeLeon, I.G., Toole, L. M., Gutshall, K. A., & Bowman, L. G. (2005). Individualized sampling parameters for behavioral observations:Enhancing the predictive validity of competing stimulus assessments. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 46, 440-455.
Note:•Hand Clapper•Gooze
66DeLeon, I.G., Toole, L. M., Gutshall, K. A., & Bowman, L. G. (2005). Individualized sampling parameters for behavioral observations:Enhancing the predictive validity of competing stimulus assessments. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 46, 440-455.
12
67
ASR #22
• Competing stimulus preference assessmentsare only useful for automatically reinforcedproblem behavior.– 1 = true– 2 = false
68
ASR #23
• In the study conducted by DeLeon, Toole,Gutshall, and Bowman (2005), results suggestedthat predictions based on individualizeddeterminations of sample lengths were no moreaccurate than predictions based on typical samplelengths.– 1 = true– 2 = false
69
ASR #24
• In order to determine whether yoursampling parameters are appropriatelyrepresentative, Johnston and Pennypacker(1993) suggest:– 1 = sample the behavior during intervals of
varying length– 2 = note the variability associated with each– 3 = select the interval for which reductions in
variability were either miniscule or unimportant– 4 = all of the above
70
Identifying Stimulus Preferences
• Other consideration in MR/DD: Difficulties ininclusion of activities.– Sometimes we want to determine preferences among
items that do not easily fit on a table top.– What options are there for these potential reinforcers:
• Verbal assessments (e.g., Cohen-Almeida, Graff, & Ahearn,2000; Northup, 2000).
– Depends on language abilities• Pictorial assessments (e.g., Clevenger & Graff, 2005; Conyers
et al., 2002; Graff & Gibson, 2003; Graff, Gibson, &Galiatsatos, 2006)
– Depends on picture-to-object matching abilities
71
Identifying Stimulus Preferences
• Conyers et al. (2002)– Determined preferences via paired-choice assessments– Compared “accuracy’ (how often participants chose the
known preferred food in 2-choice trials) under 3conditions:
• Object – presented actual items• Spoken – “Do you want X or Y”• Picture – presented pictures of the items
– Examining correspondence of accuracy in these 3modes as a function of abilities on the Assessment ofBasic Learning Abilities (ABLA)
72
Identifying Stimulus Preferences
• ABLA– Level 3 = Can make 2 choice visual discriminations– Level 4 = a two-choice visual quasi-identity match-to-
sample discrimination• put a manipulandum into the matching container (e.g., a
yellow cylinder in the yellow can and a red cube in the redbox)
– Level 6 = a two-choice auditory-visual combineddiscrimination
• E.g., place a piece of foam into the container that was verballyrequested by the tester (e.g., ‘‘yellow can’’ or ‘‘red box’’, notnecessarily matched on color).
13
73Conyers, C. Doole, A. Vause, T. Harapiak, S. Yu, D. C. T. & Martin, G. L. (2002). Predicting the relative efficacy of three presentationmethods for assessing preferences of persons with developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 49-58.
74
Identifying Stimulus Preferences
• Other considerations in MR/DD: Selectivepreferences for food
• DeLeon, Iwata, & Roscoe (1997):– Conducted preference assessments with mixed arrays:
Both food and tangible items• To what extent are food items generally preferred over non-
food items?
– Repeated preference assessments, minus the food items• If food items are excluded, do some non-food items become
clear high-preference items
– Assessed whether initially LP activities functioned asreinforcers.
75DeLeon, I. G., Iwata, B. A., & Roscoe, E. M. (1997). Displacement of leisure reinforcers by food during preference assessments. Journalof Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 475-484.
76DeLeon, I. G., Iwata, B. A., & Roscoe, E. M. (1997). Displacement of leisure reinforcers by food during preference assessments. Journalof Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 475-484.
77
Identifying Stimulus Preferences
– Other consideration in MR/DD• Arbitrary selections• Position preferences• “Saving the best for last” phenomena
– May have to be careful in placement of stimuli– These things cannot be ignored because we
invest a lot it their results!!
78
ASR #25
• Preference assessments in which the actualstimuli are not present have been proveninaccurate and should not be used– 1 = true– 2 = false
14
79
ASR #26
• According to the study conducted by Conyers andcolleagues (2002), participants' who were able tomake combined auditory-visual discriminationsmay be able to indicate preferences:– 1 = only with preference assessments in which they
choose among actual objects– 2 = using verbal preference assessments– 3 = using pictorial preference assessments– 4 = using both verbal and pictorial preference
assessments
80
ASR #27
• Based on the DeLeon, Iwata, and Roscoe (1997)study, how should you approach the identificationof both food and leisure reinforcers?– 1 = They can be combined in the same assessment as
long as only one or two food items are included– 2 = They should be assessed separately– 3 = They can be combined as long as position
preferences are taken into account
81
Assessing the Strength of Reinforcers
82
Objectives
1. Understand the relationship between stimuluspreference assessments and reinforcer assessments
2. Know various methods used to conduct a reinforcerassessment
3. Understand the relative strengths and limitations ofvarious forms of reinforcer assessment
• Single-operant assessments• Concurrent-schedule assessments
4. Know what reinforcer assessments tell us about therelative and absolute effects of high-, moderate-, andlow-preference stimuli
5. Know what a progressive-ratio schedule is and whatit tells you about reinforcer value
83
Assessing the Strength of Reinforcers
• Reinforcer Assessment: Rationale– SPAs are just a prediction.– SPAs are conducted under extremely low effort
requirements, often with simplistic responses– Predictions made under these conditions do not
necessarily guarantee the utility of the stimulus inactual training or treatment (e.g. Roane et al., 1999).
• Therefore, the predictions of SPA should beverified under conditions that more closelyparallel actual training contexts– Actual work– Realistic schedules
84
Assessing the Strength of Reinforcers
• Reinforcer Assessment: Methods– Typical dependent variables and arrangements
• Response rates relative to BL• Response allocation
– Experimental Arrangements• Single schedule arrangements• Concurrent schedule arrangements• Design alternatives?
15
85
ASR #28
• Which of the following is a rationale forconducting a reinforcer assessment?– 1 = SPAs are just a prediction.– 2 = SPAs are conducted under extremely low effort
requirements, often with simplistic responses– 3 = Predictions of SPAs should be verified under
conditions that more closely parallel actual trainingcontexts
– 4 = All of the above
86
ASR #29
• Predictions made by SPAs do / do notguarantee the utility of the stimulus inactual training or treatment.– 1 = do– 2 = do not
87
Assessing the Strength of Reinforcers
• Single-operant arrangement• Carr, Nicholson, & Higbee (2000)
– Conducted MSWO assessment– Selected high, moderate, and low-preference
stimuli– Used single operant-arrangement to test for
relative strength• Examined number of correct academic responses
produced by each level of stimulus
88Carr, J. E., Nicolson, A. C., & Higbee, T. S. (2000). Evaluation of a brief multiple-stimulus preference assessment in a naturalistic context.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 353-357.
89
Assessing the Strength of Reinforcers
• Concurrent-schedule arrangement• Piazza et al. (1996)
– Conducted paired-choice SPA– Selected items of high, middle, and low preference– Used concurrent operant arrangements to test for
relative strength• Continuous reinforcement• Measured “in-seat” or “in-square” behavior
– Question: Do stimuli lying along various points of apreference hierarchy produce similarly orderedmeasures of relative reinforcer value.
90
16
91
Assessing the Strength of Reinforcers
• Comparing outcomes on single- and concurrrentschedules
• Roscoe, Iwata, & Kahng (1999)– Conducted both single stimulus and paired-choice
preference assessments on the same items– Compared effects of HP and LP
• HP = Most approached in both assessments• LP = 100% approach in SS, >25% approach in PS
– HP and LP stimuli compared in concurrent schedule,then LP stimuli assessed in single-operant schedule(FR1)
92Roscoe, E. M. Iwata, B. A. & Kahng, S. (1999). Relative versus absolute reinforcement effects: Implications for preference assessments.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 479-493.
93
Two Outcomes:1. LP stimulus produces
rates as high as Hpstimulus
2. LP stimulus produceslower rates
• In 7 of 8 participants,Outcome 1 is observed
Roscoe, E. M. Iwata, B. A. & Kahng, S. (1999). Relative versus absolute reinforcement effects: Implications for preference assessments.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 479-493.
94
Assessing the Strength of Reinforcers
• Summary thus far:– Concurrent schedules are more sensitive to relative
reinforcer effects– But concurrent schedules:
• Might mask reinforcer effects for lower preference stimuli• Do not resemble typical teaching arrangements
– Single schedules (simple FR)• More closely resemble typical teaching arrangements• But sensitivity to relative reinforcer value might be limited by
ceiling effects– Are there other important dimension son which HP and
LP stimuli might differ that are not detected by single-operant arrangements?
95
ASR # 30
• Carr, Nicholson, & Higbee (2000)conducted MSWO assessments to identifyhigh, moderate, and low preference stimuli.They subsequently tested the relativestrength of these stimuli under a singleoperant-arrangement. Results suggestedwhich of the following?– 1 = Reinforcer evaluations confirmed the predictions of
the preference assessments.– 2 = Reinforcer evaluations did not confirm the
predictions of the preference assessments.
96
ASR #31
• Piazza et. al (1996) found that stimuli lyingalong various points of a preferencehierarchy produce similarly orderedmeasures of relative reinforcer value.– 1 = True– 2 = False
17
97
ASR #32
• Which of the following is a limitation ofusing a concurrent-schedule arrangement toassess reinforcer strength?– 1 = Might mask reinforcer effects for lower
preference stimuli– 2 = Might mask reinforcer effects for higher
preference stimuli– 3 = Sensitivity to relative reinforcer value
might be limited by ceiling effects
98
ASR #33
• In 7 of 8 participants, Roscoe, Iwata, & Kahng, (1999)found that under a single operant arrangement, the LPstimulus produced rates as high as the HP stimulus hadduring the concurrent arrangement. This suggests thatconcurrent-schedule arrangements are appropriate for theassessment of ______ reinforcement effects, while_______effects may be best examined under single-schedule arrangements.
– 1 = absolute, relative– 2 = relative, absolute– 3 = positive, negative– 4 = negative, positive
99
ASR #34
• Which of the following is a limitation ofusing a single-schedule arrangement toassess reinforcer strength?– 1 = Might mask reinforcer effects for lower preference
stimuli– 2 = Might mask reinforcer effects for higher preference
stimuli– 3 = They more closely resemble typical teaching
situations– 4 = Sensitivity to relative reinforcer value might be
limited by ceiling effects100
ASR #35
• Which schedule is more sensitive to relativereinforcer effects?– 1 = Single-schedule– 2 = Concurrent-schedule
101
ASR #36
• A stimulus is identified as low preferencein a preference assessment. This LPstimulus subsequently functions as aneffective reinforcer under a singleschedule arrangement. A false ______prediction was obtained via the preferenceassessment.
– 1 = positive– 2 = negative
102
Assessing the Strength of Reinforcers
• Progressive Ratio Schedules– What are they?
• Reinforcement schedule in which the ratiorequirements increase across successive “trials.”
• Sessions continues until the participant ceases torespond for criterion amount of time
• Primary dependent measure = “break point”– The highest schedule requirement completed before
responding ceases for criterion time
18
103
Assessing the Strength of Reinforcers
• Progressive Ratio Schedules– Why use them?
• A different method of reinforcement assessment• Taps into a slightly different aspects of
reinforcement effects:– Rather than “how fast” an organism will respond when a
reinforcer is made contingent upon that response…– “How much” an organism will respond
104
Assessing the Strength of Reinforcers
• PR Schedules: Francisco et al. (in press).– Compared HP and LP stimuli– Arranged progressive ratio schedules
• First under concurrent arrangements• Then tested LP stimuli alone
105Francisco, M. T., Borrero, J. C., & Sy, J. R. (in press). Evaluation of absolute and relative reinforcer value using progressive ratioschedules. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis.
106
Assessing the Strength of Reinforcers
• PR Schedules: Glover et al. (in press)– Compared HP and LP stimuli– Arranged progressive ratio schedules
• First under independent single-operant schedules• Then under concurrent schedules
107Glover, A. C., Roane, H. S., Kadey, H. J., & Grow, L. L. (in press). Preference for reinforcers under progressive and fixed-ratio schedules:A comparison of single- and concurrent-operant arrangements. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis.
108
Assessing the Strength of Reinforcers
• Why the different results between the 2studies?– Glover et al. selected the lowest ranked
reinforcer– Francisco et al. selected a low-ranked
reinforcer, but not the lowest– Are PR schedules sensitive to differences
among stimuli lying on different points of apreference hierarchy?
19
109
Assessing the Strength of Reinforcers
• PR Schedules: DeLeon et al. (in press)– Selected HP (ranked 1-4), MP (5-8), and LP (9-
12) stimuli from a hierarchy of reinforcers– Subject each to PR schedules
• 3 evaluations per stimulus• Step size = 1• Break point = 1 min
– Examined correspondence between preferenceassessment outcomes and mean PR breakpoints
110DeLeon, I.G., Frank, M. A., Gregory, M. K., & Allman, M. J. (in press). On the correspondence between preference assessment outcomesand progressive-ratio schedule assessments of stimulus value. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis.
111
Assessing the Strength of Reinforcers
• Conclusions on PR schedules– May differentiate effects of HP and LP stimuli to a
greater extent than response rate in single schedules– May be more relevant than conc schedules
• Are there other dimensions not examined inrelation to the difference between HP and LPstimuli– Are HP stimuli more resistant to delays to
reinforcement?– Can HP stimuli be thinned more readily?
112
ASR #37
• “Break point” is the primary dependentmeasure for what type of schedule?
– 1 = single-operant– 2 = progressive-ratio– 3 = concurrent schedule– 4 = MSWO
113
ASR #38
• In a progressive-ratio schedule:– 1 = Sessions continue until the participant
ceases to respond for criterion amount of time– 2 = Sessions continue until the participant
completes the highest programmed schedule
114
ASR #39
• Progressive-ratio schedules measure howfast / how much an organism will respondwhen a reinforcer is made contingent upona response.
– 1 = how fast– 2 = how much
20
115
ASR #40
• “Break point” refers to the ____________completed before responding ceases forcriterion amount of time.
– 1 = frequency of responding– 2 = highest rate of responding– 3 = highest schedule requirement
116
Assessing the Strength of Reinforcers
• Preference/Reinforcer Assessment Summary– Select methods best suited to your objectives:
• How are you using the stimuli?– What behavior are you seeking to reinforce?– What sort of schedule will you arrange?– Do you need a single or multiple reinforcers (For stimulus
variation? For differential outcome effects?).• Will you be able to conduct frequent assessments?• What is the level of person’s disability?• Are you concerned about problem behavior?
– Stimuli determined to be of low preference may still bevaluable reinforcers
117
Assessing the Strength of Reinforcers
• What is lacking in this research:– Studies on acquisition rates
• We have data on correct responding, choice, etc.• But these measures do not indicate the differential ability of
one stimulus or another to enhance new learning.• This is important because presumably, that is what the
reinforcer will be used for.
– Studies on longer-term effects (e.g. are more IEP goalsmastered) through careful selection of reinforcers?
– Studies that examine differential effects of HP stimulion other response/reinforcer dimensions
• Do HP stimuli result in greater tolerance to reinforcer delays?
118
Shifts in Preference and Stimulus Value
119
Objectives
1. Understand why we should be concerned aboutshifts in stimulus preferences.
2. Be able to discuss results related to whetherpreferences remain constant across time.
3. Know how changes in stimulus preferences arerelated to changes in the effectiveness of thosestimuli as reinforcers
4. Be able to explain the danger inherent inconducting only one preference assessment
120
Shifts in Preference and Stimulus Value
• Questions about stability of preferences andvalue:– How stable are preferences and reinforcer
efficacy over time?– What are variables that contribute to stability
(or lack thereof) of stimulus preferences?– How may the typical use of reinforcers impact
their value over time?
21
121
Shifts in Preference and Stimulus Value
• Zhou, Iwata, Goff, & Shore (2001)– 22 adults with IDD, residential facility– Conducted PS preference assessments at point
1– Repeated the assessment at point 2
• Ranging intervals between the two points• 12 to 20 months apart
– Examined• Rank-order correlations between the first and
second assessments122
Zhou, Iwata, Goff, & Shore (2001)
123
Shifts in Preference and Stimulus Value
• Zhou et al. (2001)– Mean rank-order correlation = 0.11 across
participants– However, greater stability for most participants
when only the top 5 stimuli are considered• Suggests highest preferences may be more stable• Corresponds with informants ability to offer
accurate opinions about reinforcers
124
Shifts in Preference and Stimulus Value
• Do individuals with ASD display morestable preferences than individuals withoutsimilar diagnoses?– Repeat assessments after 1 day, 1 week, and
more than 1 week– Rank order correlations used to examine
stability
125 126
22
127
Shifts in Preference and Stimulus Value
• Are food preferences more or less stablethan non-food preferences?
• Ciccone, Graff, & Ahearn (2007)– Examined rank-order correlation coefficients
for food only, N = 8• After 6 mos, mean coefficient = 0.66• After 12 mos, mean coefficient = 0.46
– Recall Zhou et al. (2001) used leisure itemsonly, coefficient = 0.11
• However, differing preference assessment, N, andinterval between assessments
128
ASR #41
• What is typically used to examinecorrespondence in preference results at 2points in time?– 1 = probability of occurrence– 2 = rating shifts– 3 = rank-order correlations
129
ASR #42
• Zhou and colleagues (2001) found thatstability of preferences differed for stimuliat different points on the preferencehierarchy– 1 = True– 2 = False
130
ASR #43
• Which group of individuals displayed agreater stability in preference duringsubsequent preferences assessments?– 1 = Diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorders– 2 = No diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorders
131
ASR #44
• What does the available evidence suggestabout the relative stability of food andleisure item preferences?– 1 = Leisure item preferences are more stable– 2 = Food preferences are more stable– 3 = Leisure and food item preferences are
equally as stable
132
Shifts in Preference and Stimulus Value
• What shall we make of these differences?– Why might food preferences be more stable?
• Local and temporally extended satiation effects forleisure items?
– Potentially, categories showing greater stabilitymay require less frequent assessment?
• However, there are dangers inherent in adopting thisstance…
23
133
Shifts in Preference and Stimulus Value
• DeLeon et al. (2000)– Are changes in preference associated with
corresponding changes in the utility of reinforcers?– Analysis:
• Conducted one lengthy paired-choice assessment before thestudy
• Conducted a brief SPA before daily training sessions
– Examined• How regularly did the daily SPA match the intial results• One days that it did not match, was the stimulus identified as
most highly preferred that day the more potent reinforcer?
134
135 136
ASR #45
• One purpose of the DeLeon (2000) studywas to:– 1 = to assess preferred stimuli that could be used in
later treatment evaluations.– 2 = assess how regularly the daily SPA corresponded
with the initial preference assessment results.– 3 = identify a hierarchy of highly preferred stimuli.
137
ASR #46
• The brief daily preference assessment verytypically resulted in the same top-rankeditem identified through the paired-stimuluspreference assessment conducted at thebeginning of the analysis.– 1 = True– 2 = False
138
ASR #47
• Overall, was more responding allocated tothe tasks associated with the top-rankedstimulus (identified by the daily brief SPA)than to tasks associated with the originaltop-ranked stimulus?– 1 = Yes– 2 = No
24
139
ASR #48
• One conclusion from the DeLeon (2000)study may be:– 1 = Preferences are stable over time– 2 = Preferences assessment do not need to be repeated
over time– 3 = Changes in preferences often correspond to changes
in reinforcer value– 4 = Shifts in preference can be ignored