A comparison of preference‐assessment methods

In Study 1, we evaluated preference stability across 4 preference‐assessment methods for 6 individuals, 5 of whom had autism spectrum disorder and 1 of whom had traumatic brain injury. We also measured participants’ problem behavior as a corollary measure during all assessment methods. The highest mean correlation coefficients and Kendall rank coefficients of concordance across administrations were observed for the paired‐stimulus and multiple‐stimulus‐without‐replacement methods. Lower correspondence across administrations was observed for the free‐operant and response‐restriction methods. Although differentially higher levels of problem behavior did not occur with a single method, lower levels were consistently observed with the free‐operant method. During Study 2, we evaluated the implications of lower coefficients on reinforcer efficacy by comparing an initially identified and an immediately identified high‐preference stimulus in a reinforcer assessment. Initially identified and immediately identified high‐preference stimuli were equally effective reinforcers, suggesting that fluctuations in preference do not necessarily affect reinforcer efficacy in practice.     

Further examination of video‐based preference assessments without contingent access

The first purpose of this study was to attempt to replicate previous findings that video‐based preference assessments without access to selected stimuli may accurately predict relative reinforcing efficacy of stimuli. To do this, we conducted a concurrent operant reinforcer assessment in which we evaluated the relative reinforcing value of highly preferred and less preferred items identified in a video‐based preference assessment. The second purpose of this study was to begin to evaluate the potential behavioral mechanisms responsible for the validity of this assessment. To conduct this analysis, we evaluated the relative reinforcing value of those same stimuli depicted in video format and then compared results to results obtained during the reinforcer assessment for tangible stimuli. For all five participants, stimuli identified as highly preferred functioned as reinforcers, and four of five participants, responding during the reinforcer assessment was similar in the presence of tangible stimuli and videos depicting those stimuli.     

Web‐based stimulus preference assessment and reinforcer assessment for videos

This study replicated and extended the use of a web‐based multiple‐stimulus‐without‐replacement preference assessment (Curiel, Curiel, Li, Deochand, & Poling, 2018) by adding a web‐based single‐operant reinforcer assessment. Five adults diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder participated in this study. The web‐based program identified preference hierarchies for 4 of the 5 participants, and the single‐operant reinforcer assessment confirmed that the highly preferred videos functioned as reinforcers. Advantages of computer‐based stimulus preference and reinforcer assessments are discussed.     

EVALUATION OF A BRIEF STIMULUS PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT

We evaluated the utility of a brief (5-min) stimulus preference assessment for individuals with developmental disabilities. Participants had noncontingent (free) access to an array of stimuli and could interact with any of the stimuli at any time. Stimuli were never withdrawn or withheld from the participants during a 5-min session. In Experiment 1, the brief preference assessment was conducted for 10 participants to identify differentially preferred stimuli, and reinforcer assessments were conducted to test the reinforcing efficacy of those stimuli identified as highly preferred. In Experiment 2, a comparison was conducted between the brief preference assessment and a commonly used paired-stimulus preference assessment. Collectively, results demonstrated that the brief preference assessment identified stimuli that functioned as reinforcers for a simple operant response, identified preferred stimuli that were differentially effective as reinforcers compared to nonpreferred stimuli, was associated with fewer problem behaviors, and required less time to complete than a commonly used paired-stimulus preference assessment.     

Evaluating different values of effort and reinforcement parameters under concurrent‐ and single‐operant arrangements

If particular parameters (e.g., reinforcer quality) are found to be preferred in a concurrent‐operant arrangement, then these should be incorporated into interventions for maintaining skills in individuals with intellectual disabilities. However, because results from a concurrent‐operant arrangement may not predict those of a single‐operant assessment, interventions with less preferred parameters may also be effective. The purpose of this study was to determine if preference for a particular parameter, determined via concurrent‐operant arrangements, predicted responding when two values of highly and less preferred parameters were manipulated in a single‐operant arrangement. Participants allocated responding to one parameter over another during concurrent‐operant assessments, indicating that certain parameters were highly preferred. However, contingent presentation of two values of less preferred parameters increased compliance to similar levels achieved with two highly preferred parameters in a single‐operant arrangement. These findings suggest that clinicians may have multiple options when selecting parameters for use during intervention.     

Teacher report and direct assessment of preferences for identifying reinforcers for young children

Teachers were asked to identify and rank 10 preferred stimuli for 9 toddlers, and a hierarchy of preference for these items was determined via a direct preference assessment. The reinforcing efficacy of the most highly preferred items identified by each method was evaluated concurrently in a reinforcer assessment. The reinforcer assessment showed that all stimuli identified as highly preferred via the direct preference assessment and teacher rankings functioned as reinforcers. The highest ranked stimuli in the direct assessment were more reinforcing than the teachers' top-ranked stimuli for 5 of 9 participants, whereas the teachers' top-ranked stimulus was more reinforcing than the highest ranked stimulus of the direct assessment for only 1 child. A strong positive correlation between rankings generated through the two assessments was identified for only 1 of the 9 participants. Despite poor correspondence between rankings generated through the teacher interview and direct preference assessment, results of the reinforcer assessment suggest that both methods are effective in identifying reinforcers for toddlers.     

A replication of the response‐restriction preference assessment

We replicated the response‐restriction (RR) preference assessment and compared results in terms of preference hierarchies to those from free‐operant and multiple stimulus without replacement (MSWO) formats with six children with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). We also assessed social validity of each format with teachers and clinicians who work with children with ASDs. Complete hierarchies were produced in four of 18 assessments and with MSWO and RR formats only. Results of the social validity assessment varied across raters, with each preference assessment format receiving the highest rating from at least one rater. Results are discussed in terms of practical recommendations and relative to the preference assessment literature as a whole.     

Signal duration and suppression of operant responding by free reinforcement

Pigeons were trained on a VI (variable interval) schedule of food presentation with a superimposed schedule of response-independent food. Substantial suppression of the operant response rate occurred when the free food was presented without a signal. When the free food was preceded by a short (4 sec) signal, the degree of suppression was similar to that with unsignaled free food. But when the signal was lengthened to 12 sec, the degree of suppression was substantially reduced. Experiment 3 assessed the effect of signal duration using a baseline schedule of delayed reinforcement, in which contingent reinforcers were themselves preceded by a signal. The signal preceding the free reinforcers was then either the same as or different from this contingent signal. Signal duration effects occurred only when the two types of signals were different. These differences as a function of signal duration have implications for both “context-blocking” and “comparator” interpretations of the effects of noncontingent reinforcement in both Pavlovian and operant procedures.     

Training Staff to Implement a Paired‐stimulus Preference Assessment using Video Modeling with Voiceover Instruction

A key component of successful early intervention programming is the identification of stimuli that may function as reinforcers. One common direct method used by behavior analysts to determine preference is the paired‐stimulus (PS) preference assessment. Although effective at identifying potential reinforcers, the PS procedure is only useful if staff are trained on the steps necessary to conduct the assessment. The current study examined the effectiveness of video modeling with voiceover instruction to train staff to conduct a PS preference assessment. Three staff were trained to do the following: (i) identify items to use during the PS assessment; (ii) conduct a PS preference assessment with a simulated consumer (i.e., an adult acting as a child); and (iii) score and interpret the results of the PS assessment. Generalization was assessed with an actual consumer (i.e., a child with an autism spectrum disorder). The results demonstrated that video modeling was effective, and staff demonstrated high levels of integrity up to 2 months following training. These results support a growing body of literature supporting the use of video modeling as an approach to training. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Assessing preference for types of social interaction

To date, few researchers have evaluated methods for assessing preference for social interactions. Due to concerns that commonly used stimulus preference assessment methods may be inappropriate, or at least cumbersome, for the assessment of social reinforcers, we developed and evaluated a new method of assessing preference for social interactions. A social interaction preference assessment (SIPA) and a concurrent operant reinforcer assessment were conducted with five participants diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. A differentially preferred and reinforcing social interaction was identified for all five participants. The SIPA procedures, results, and the implications of these results are discussed.     

A comparison of stimulus preference assessment methods in adults with schizophrenia

Three methods of assessing preference for stimuli were compared in four adults with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. During phase 1, a survey method, a verbal stimulus choice method, and a pictorial stimulus choice method of assessing preference for four categories of stimuli were administered. During phase 2, a coupon system was used to determine which categories of stimuli actually functioned as reinforcers for each participant. Comparisons between the three preference assessment methods were then conducted based on the results of the reinforcer assessment. Results showed that, overall, there were few differences in total accuracy among the preference assessment procedures. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Response latency as a measure of behavior in the assessment of elopement

Elopement is a common form of problem behavior but is relatively underrepresented in the functional analysis literature. One barrier to assessing elopement experimentally is the need to retrieve the subject following an instance of elopement. This retrieval confounds programmed session contingencies when the goal is to obtain repeated measurement of free‐operant behavior. The current study evaluated latency to elopement as an alternative to free‐operant measurement. We first compared response latency to allocation in 5‐min sessions and then measured latency alone in a trial‐based format. The identified reinforcers matched across both data analysis modalities in the session‐based assessments, and the trial‐based functional analysis showed a significant time savings in identifying the function of behavior over a session‐based assessment. Results indicated that elopement serves idiosyncratic social functions in young children with intellectual and developmental disabilities, and that a latency‐based assessment saves time while yielding equally clear results.     

An alternate scoring method for the multiple stimulus without replacement preference assessment

DeLeon and Iwata (1996) described the difficulties in applying the percentage approached scoring method to the multiple stimulus without replacement (MSWO) preference assessment relative to its application in the paired stimulus assessment. This scoring method may result in highly preferred items being misidentified as moderate or low preference. In the present study, the results of 57 MSWO assessments were scored using both the percentage approach method and a point weighting method. More items were identified as highly preferred with the point weighting method. Reinforcer assessments were conducted on a subset of stimuli judged to be high preference using the point weighting method but moderately or non‐preferred when scored with the percentage approached method; all stimuli functioned as reinforcers. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN SINGLE VERSUS DAILY PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT OUTCOMES AND REINFORCER EFFICACY UNDER PROGRESSIVE‐RATIO SCHEDULES

Research has suggested that a daily multiple‐stimulus‐without‐replacement (MSWO) preference assessment may be more sensitive to changes in preference than other assessment formats, thereby resulting in greater correspondence with reinforcer efficacy over time ( DeLeon et al., 2001 ). However, most prior studies have measured reinforcer efficacy using rate of responding under single‐operant arrangements and dense schedules or under concurrent‐operants arrangements. An alternative measure of reinforcer efficacy involves the evaluation of responding under progressive‐ratio (PR) schedules. In the present study, 7 participants were given a single paired‐stimulus (PS) preference assessment followed by daily MSWO preference assessments. After each daily MSWO, participants responded for each stimulus on a PR schedule. The correspondence between break points and preferences, as assessed by the 2 assessment formats, was examined. Results demonstrated that both preference assessments did equally well at predicting reinforcer efficacy, although the PS more consistently identified the most effective reinforcer.     

Evaluation of the rate of problem behavior maintained by different reinforcers across preference assessments

The rates of problem behavior maintained by different reinforcers were evaluated across 3 preference assessment formats (i.e., paired stimulus, multiple-stimulus without replacement, and free operant). The experimenter administered each assessment format 5 times in a random order for 7 children with developmental disabilities whose problem behavior was maintained by attention, tangible items, or escape. Results demonstrated different effects related to the occurrence of problem behavior, suggesting an interaction between function of problem behavior and assessment format. Implications for practitioners are discussed with respect to assessing preferences of individuals with developmental disabilities who exhibit problem behavior.     

DIFFERENTIAL RESPONSE PATTERNS TO THE CONTROL CONDITION BETWEEN TWO PROCEDURES TO ASSESS SOCIAL REINFORCERS FOR CHILDREN WITH AUTISM

Historically, reinforcer assessment procedures focus primarily on identifying nonsocial reinforcers (e.g., tangibles and edibles). Far less empirical attention has been allocated to the systematic identification of social consequences that function as reinforcers. This discrepancy is problematic given that social consequences are commonly incorporated into behavioral treatment programs without systematic evaluation of their efficacy. In this study, two methodologies (a single operant and a concurrent choice) were used to assess social reinforcers for children with autism. Results highlighted differences in response allocation to the control condition between procedures. Specifically, responding occurred in the control condition of the single‐operant procedure but not in the concurrent‐operant procedure. These differences highlight the need for further evaluation of procedures to assess social reinforcers. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

USING A CHOICE ASSESSMENT TO PREDICT REINFORCER EFFECTIVENESS

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.     

ON THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT OUTCOMES AND PROGRESSIVE‐RATIO SCHEDULE ASSESSMENTS OF STIMULUS VALUE

The current study examined whether stimuli of different preference levels would be associated with different amounts of work maintained by the stimuli, as determined through progressive‐ratio schedule break points. Using a paired‐choice preference assessment, stimuli were classified as high, moderate, or low preference for 4 individuals with developmental disabilities. The stimuli were then tested three times each using a progressive‐ratio schedule (step size of 1; the break‐point criterion was 1 min). In 10 of 12 possible comparisons, higher preference stimuli produced larger break points than did lower preference stimuli.     

Impulsive choice and pre‐exposure to delays: iv. effects of delay‐ and immediacy‐exposure training relative to maturational changes in impulsivity

Impulsive choice describes preference for smaller, sooner rewards over larger, later rewards. Excessive delay discounting (i.e., rapid devaluation of delayed rewards) underlies some impulsive choices, and is observed in many maladaptive behaviors (e.g., substance abuse, gambling). Interventions designed to reduce delay discounting may provide therapeutic gains. One such intervention provides rats with extended training with delayed reinforcers. When compared to a group given extended training with immediate reinforcers, delay‐exposed rats make significantly fewer impulsive choices. To what extent is this difference due to delay‐exposure training shifting preference toward self‐control or immediacy‐exposure training (the putative control group) shifting preference toward impulsivity? The current study compared the effects of delay‐ and immediacy‐exposure training to a no‐training control group and evaluated within‐subject changes in impulsive choice across 51 male Wistar rats. Delay‐exposed rats made significantly fewer impulsive choices than immediacy‐exposed and control rats. Between‐group differences in impulsive choice were not observed in the latter two groups. While delay‐exposed rats showed large, significant pre‐ to posttraining reductions in impulsive choice, immediacy‐exposed and control rats showed small reductions in impulsive choice. These results suggest that extended training with delayed reinforcers reduces impulsive choice, and that extended training with immediate reinforcers does not increase impulsive choice.     

The dynamics of operant conditioning

Existing models of operant learning are relatively insensitive to historical properties of behavior and applicable to only limited data sets. This article proposes a minimal set of principles based on short-term and long-term memory mechanisms that can explain the major static and dynamic properties of operant behavior in both single-choice and multiresponse situations. The critical features of the theory are as follows: (a) The key property of conditioning is assessment of the degree of association between responses and reinforcement and between stimuli and reinforcement; (b) the contingent reinforcement is represented by learning expectancy, which is the combined prediction of response-reinforcement and stimulus-reinforcement associations; (c) the operant response is controlled by the interplay between facilitatory and suppressive variables that integrate differences between expected (long-term) and experienced (short-term) events; and (d) very-long-term effects are encoded by a consolidated memory that is sensitive to the entire reinforcement history. The model predicts the major qualitative features of operant phenomena and then suggests an experimental test of theoretical predictions about the joint effects of reinforcement probability and amount of training on operant choice. We hypothesize that the set of elementary principles that we propose may help resolve the long-standing debate about the fundamental variables controlling operant conditioning.