Examining a Web-Based Procedure for Assessing Preference for Videos
- 101 Downloads
A web-based program was developed to conduct brief multiple-stimulus without replacement preference assessments for videos (e.g., movies, cartoons, music videos). The preference assessment program was used with two populations: young adults with developmental disabilities and school-age children with emotional and behavioral needs. Stimulus preference hierarchies were identified for all participants, indicating that a web-based preference assessment procedure is an efficient procedure for isolating highly preferred videos, which might be useful as reinforcers in a variety of settings.
Keywordsstimulus preference assessment reinforcer videos technology
This study was not funded.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
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. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Conflict of Interest
Hugo Curiel declares that he has no conflict of interest. Emily Curiel declares that she has no conflict of interest. Anita Li declares that she has no conflict of interest. Neil Deochand declares that he has no conflict of interest. Alan Poling declares that he has no conflict of interest.
- Brodhead, M. T., Abel, E. A., Al-Dubayan, M. N., Brouwers, L., Abston, G. W., & Rispoli, M. J. (2016). An evaluation of a brief multiple-stimulus without replacement preference assessment conducted in an electronic pictorial format. Journal of Behavioral Education, 25, 417–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-016-9254-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Kang, S., O’Reilly, M., Lancioni, G., Falcomata, T. S., 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2012.12.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar