Predicting Optimal Preference Assessment Methods for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities.

Kendra M Thomson, Diana Czarnecki, Toby L Martin, C T Yu, Garry L Martin
{"title":"Predicting Optimal Preference Assessment Methods for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities.","authors":"Kendra M Thomson,&nbsp;Diana Czarnecki,&nbsp;Toby L Martin,&nbsp;C T Yu,&nbsp;Garry L Martin","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The single-stimulus (SS) preference assessment procedure has been described as more appropriate than the paired stimulus (PS) procedure for \"lower functioning\" individuals, but this guideline's vagueness limits its usefulness. We administered the SS and PS preference assessment procedures with food items to seven individuals with severe or profound developmental disabilities who scored at level 2 of the Assessment of Basic Learning Abilities (ABLA) and seven who scored at ABLA level 3. Thirteen of the 14 participants also received these assessments (PS and SS), with non-food items. The two procedures were about equally effective for both groups, and with both types of stimuli, although the PS procedure produced more refined preference hierarchies. Most participants showed moderate to high correlations in preference scores between the two procedures for both food and non-food items. These results suggest that, for individuals who score at either ABLA level 2 or ABLA level 3, the SS and the PS procedures are equally likely to identify preferred stimuli.</p>","PeriodicalId":93641,"journal":{"name":"Education and training in developmental disabilities","volume":"42 1","pages":"107-114"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3608572/pdf/nihms2618.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Education and training in developmental disabilities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The single-stimulus (SS) preference assessment procedure has been described as more appropriate than the paired stimulus (PS) procedure for "lower functioning" individuals, but this guideline's vagueness limits its usefulness. We administered the SS and PS preference assessment procedures with food items to seven individuals with severe or profound developmental disabilities who scored at level 2 of the Assessment of Basic Learning Abilities (ABLA) and seven who scored at ABLA level 3. Thirteen of the 14 participants also received these assessments (PS and SS), with non-food items. The two procedures were about equally effective for both groups, and with both types of stimuli, although the PS procedure produced more refined preference hierarchies. Most participants showed moderate to high correlations in preference scores between the two procedures for both food and non-food items. These results suggest that, for individuals who score at either ABLA level 2 or ABLA level 3, the SS and the PS procedures are equally likely to identify preferred stimuli.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
预测发育障碍个体的最优偏好评估方法。
单一刺激(SS)偏好评估程序被描述为比配对刺激(PS)程序更适合于“低功能”个体,但该指南的模糊性限制了其实用性。我们对7名在基本学习能力评估(ABLA)中得分为2级的重度或重度发育障碍个体和7名在ABLA中得分为3级的重度或重度发育障碍个体实施了带有食物项目的SS和PS偏好评估程序。14名参与者中的13人也接受了这些评估(PS和SS),其中包括非食品项目。尽管PS程序产生了更精细的偏好层次,但这两种程序对两组和两种类型的刺激都是同样有效的。大多数参与者在食物和非食物项目的两种程序之间表现出中等到高度的相关性。这些结果表明,对于得分为ABLA 2级或ABLA 3级的个体,SS和PS程序同样有可能识别出偏好的刺激。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Discrimination Skills Predict Effective Preference Assessment Methods for Adults with Developmental Disabilities. Predicting Optimal Preference Assessment Methods for Individuals with Developmental Disabilities. Choice, Degree of Preference, and Happiness Indices with Persons with Intellectual Disabilities: A Surprising Finding.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1