An evaluation of the value of choice with preschool children

The current study examined the reinforcing effects of choosing among alternatives in a four-part evaluation. In the first study, initial-link responses in a concurrent-chains arrangement resulted in access to terminal links in which the completion of an academic task resulted in (a) the choice of a reinforcer (choice), (b) the delivery of an identical reinforcer (no choice), or (c) no material reinforcer (control). Three patterns of responding emerged: persistent preference for choice (3 participants); initial preference for choice, which did not persist (2 participants); and preference for no choice (1 participant). Additional evaluations determined if preference for choice could be enhanced (Study 2) or established (Study 3) by including more stimuli from which to choose. Choice-link selections systematically increased for all participants when more items were available from which to choose. Study 4 identified the precise value of the opportunity to choose by progressively increasing the response requirement during the choice terminal links for 3 children and determining the point at which these children stopped selecting the choice link. All children continued to select the choice link even when the work required in the choice link was much greater than that arranged in the no-choice link.     

Assessing object-to-picture and picture-to-object matching as prerequisite skills for pictorial preference assessments

Tangible and pictorial paired-stimulus (PPS) preference assessments were compared for 6 individuals with developmental disabilities. During tangible and PPS assessments, two edible items or photographs were presented on each trial, respectively, and approach responses were recorded. Both assessments yielded similar preference hierarchies for 3 participants who could match pictures and objects but different hierarchies for 3 participants who could not. Reinforcer assessments verified that items identified as high preference on PPS assessments functioned as reinforcers only for participants with matching skills.     

Longitudinal analysis of leisure-item preferences.

Twenty‐two individuals with developmental disabilities participated in two leisure‐item preference assessments, spaced approximately 16 months apart. Results showed (a) an overall increase in item contact across assessments for 13 participants and (b) at least some overlap across assessments in the five most highly ranked items for every participant. These results highlight individual differences in the stability of preference over time and suggest the need for research to identify the determinants of temporal shifts in preference.     

Further evaluation of low-ranked items in stimulus-choice preference assessments

The generality of the findings reported by DeLeon, Iwata, and Roscoe (1997) was examined by conducting two stimulus-choice preference assessments, the second of which evaluated low-ranked items from the initial assessment. Results for the 2 participants suggested that supplementary assessments of low-ranked items may be useful for identifying a wider variety of reinforcing stimuli.     

DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF EATING REGULATION IN OBESE AND NONOBESE CHILDREN

Bite rate, sip rate, and concurrent activities of six 7-yr-old children, three obese and three nonobese, were observed at lunchtime over a six-month period. A procedure for decreasing bite rate, putting eating utensils down between bites, was implemented in a multiple-baseline across-subjects design. Sip rates and concurrent activities were observed to assess behavioral covariations. In addition, bite rate and amount of food completed were computed over six food categories to analyze food preferences. Results indicated the control of bite rate across all subjects, with a significant reduction in amount of food consumed. Correlations between the response classes indicated they were at least partially independent. Differences in eating behavior of obese and nonobese subjects were observed for breadstuffs and milk drinking.     

Examination of relative reinforcement effects of stimuli identified through pretreatment and daily brief preference assessments.

Several brief preference assessments have recently been developed to identify reinforcers for individuals with developmental disabilities. One purported advantage of brief assessments is that they can be administered frequently, thus accommodating shifts in preference and presumably enhancing reinforcement effects. In this study, we initially conducted lengthy paired‐choice preference assessments and identified a hierarchy of preferred items for 5 individuals with developmental disabilities. Subsequently, brief multiple‐stimulus‐without‐replacement assessments using the same items were completed each day prior to work sessions. On days when results of the daily brief assessment differed from the one‐time lengthy assessment, the relative reinforcing effects of the top items from each assessment were compared in a concurrent‐schedule arrangement. The results revealed that when the two assessments differed, participants generally allocated more responses to the task associated with the daily top‐ranked item.     

EMERGENCE OF REINFORCER PREFERENCE AS A FUNCTION OF SCHEDULE REQUIREMENTS AND STIMULUS SIMILARITY

Tustin (1994) recently observed that an individual's preference for one of two concurrently available reinforcers under low schedule requirements (concurrent fixed-ratio [FR] 1) switched to the other reinforcer when the schedule requirements were high (concurrent FR 10). We extended this line of research by examining preference for similar and dissimilar reinforcers (i.e., those affecting the same sensory modality and those affecting different sensory modalities). Two individuals with developmental disabilities were exposed to an arrangement in which pressing two different panels produced two different reinforcers according to progressively increasing, concurrent-ratio schedules. When two dissimilar stimuli were concurrently available (food and a leisure item), no clear preference for one item over the other was observed, regardless of the FR schedules in effect (FR 1, 2, 5, 10, and 20). By contrast, when two similar stimuli were concurrently available (two food items), a clear preference for one item emerged as the schedule requirements were increased from FR 1 to FR 5 or FR 10. These results are discussed in terms of implications for conducting preference assessments and for selecting reinforcers to be used under training conditions in which response requirements are relatively high or effortful.     

EVALUATION OF A MULTIPLE-STIMULUS PRESENTATION FORMAT FOR ASSESSING REINFORCER PREFERENCES

We compared three methods for presenting stimuli during reinforcer-preference assessments: a paired-stimulus format (PS), a multiple-stimulus format in which selections were made with replacement (MSW), and a multiple-stimulus format in which selections were made without replacement (MSWO). Results obtained for 7 participants showed moderate to high rank-order correlations between the MSWO and PS procedures and a similar number of identified reinforcers. In addition, the time to administer the MSWO procedure was comparable to that required for the MSW method and less than half that required to administer the PS procedure. Subsequent tests of reinforcement effects revealed that some stimuli selected in the PS and MSWO procedures, but not selected in the MSW procedure, functioned as reinforcers for arbitrary responses. These preliminary results suggest that the multiple-stimulus procedure without replacement may share the respective advantages of the other methods.     

Relative versus absolute reinforcement effects: implications for preference assessments

We compared results obtained in two previous studies on reinforcer identification (Fisher et al., 1992; Pace, Ivancic, Edwards, Iwata, & Page, 1985) by combining methodologies from both studies. Eight individuals with mental retardation participated. During Phase 1, two preference assessments were conducted, one in which stimuli were presented singly (SS method) and one in which stimuli were presented in pairs (PS method). Based on these results, two types of stimuli were identified for each participant: High-preference (HP) stimuli were those selected on 75% or more trials during both preference assessments; low-preference (LP) stimuli were those selected on 100% of the SS trials but on 25% or fewer of the PS trials. During Phase 2, the reinforcing effects of HP and LP stimuli were evaluated in reversal designs under two test conditions: concurrent and single schedules of continuous reinforcement. Two response options were available under the concurrent-schedule condition: One response produced access to the HP stimulus; the other produced access to the LP stimulus. Only one response option was available under the single-schedule condition, and that response produced access only to the LP stimulus. Results indicated that 7 of the 8 participants consistently showed preference for the HP stimulus under the concurrent schedule. However, when only the LP stimulus was available during the single-schedule condition, response rates for 6 of the 7 participants were as high as those observed for the HP stimulus during the concurrent-schedule condition (1 participant showed no reinforcement effect). These results indicate that, although the concurrent-schedule procedure is well suited to the assessment of relative reinforcement effects (preference for one reinforcer over another), absolute reinforcement effects associated with a given stimulus may be best examined under single-schedule conditions.     

Examination of ambiguous stimulus preferences with duration-based measures

Items that produced ambiguous results in an approach-based preference assessment were reassessed using a duration-based assessment. The reinforcing effects of three items on free-operant responding were subsequently tested. The results suggested that the duration-based assessment produced slightly more differentiated results and that predictions about reinforcer value, based on this assessment, were accurate.