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


• 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


• 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


• 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


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


• 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


• 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%


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


• 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


• 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


• 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


• 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


• 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


• 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


• 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


• 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


• 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


• 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


• 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.


Note:•Hand Clapper•Gooze


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


• 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


• 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


• 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


• 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


– 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


• 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


• 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


• 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


• 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


• 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


• 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


• 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


• 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


• 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


• 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


• 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


• 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


• 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


• 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


• 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


• 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


• 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


• 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


• 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


• 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


• 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


• 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

403 BEH 5004 Unit #3 PP SG4A DeLeon - CourseWebs

Documents

Transcript of 403 BEH 5004 Unit #3 PP SG4A DeLeon - CourseWebs