Abstract
Preferred forms of social interaction were identified using a paired-stimulus format in which two 3–5 s videos of the experimenter providing the social interaction to the participant were presented. Reinforcer efficacy of the high-, medium-, and low-preferred interactions was evaluated using a progressive-ratio schedule to determine the amount of work maintained by the stimuli. Results showed that higher preference stimuli produced larger break points than did lower preference stimuli.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Clark, D. R., Donaldson, J. M., & Kahng, S. (2015). Are video-based preference assessments without access to stimuli effective? Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48, 1–6.
Clay, C. J., Samaha, A. L., Bloom, S. E., Bogoev, B. K., & Boyle, M. A. (2013). Assessing preference for social interactions. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34, 362–371.
Clevenger, T. M., & Graff, R. B. (2005). Assessing object-to-picture and picture-to-object matching as prerequisite skills for pictorial preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38, 543–547.
DeLeon, I. G., Frank, M. A., Gregory, M. K., & Allman, M. J. (2009). On the correspondence between preference assessment outcomes and progressive-ratio schedule assessments of stimulus value. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 729–733.
Fisher, W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., Hagopian, L. P., Owens, J. C., & Slevin, I. (1992). A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe to profound disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 491–498.
Hodos, W. (1961). Progressive ratio as a measure of reward strength. Science, 134, 943–944.
Kang, S., O’Reilly, M., Lancioni, G., Falcomata, T., Sigafoos, J., & Xu, Z. (2013). Comparison of the predictive validity and consistency among preference assessment procedures: A review of the literature. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34, 1125–1133.
Nuernberger, J. E., Smith, C. A., Czapar, K. N., & Klatt, K. P. (2012). Assessing preference for social interaction in children diagnosed with autism. Behavioral Interventions, 27, 33–44.
Poling, A. (2010). Progressive-ratio schedules and applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 347–349.
Roane, H. S. (2008). On the applied use of progressive-ratio schedules of reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41, 155–161.
Snyder, K., Higbee, T. S., & Dayton, E. (2012). Preliminary investigation of a video-based stimulus preference assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45, 413–418.
Sparrow, S. S., Cicchetti, D. V., & Balla, D. A. (2006). Vineland-II adaptive behavior scales: Teaching rating form. Circle Pines, MN: AGS Publishing.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Davis, T.N., Hodges, A., Weston, R. et al. Correspondence Between Preference Assessment Outcomes and Stimulus Reinforcer Value for Social Interactions. J Behav Educ 26, 238–249 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-017-9271-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-017-9271-x