两种强化偏好评估技术的临床应用:功能性强化评估和识别持续时间的比较。

Traci Lanner, B. Nichols, S. Field, J. Hanson, Thomas Zane
{"title":"两种强化偏好评估技术的临床应用:功能性强化评估和识别持续时间的比较。","authors":"Traci Lanner, B. Nichols, S. Field, J. Hanson, Thomas Zane","doi":"10.1037/H0100683","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Educators have relied on the use of positive reinforcement techniques for many years to modify human behavior (e.g., Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007). One particular challenge in working with individuals who exhibit developmental disabilities such as autism is that of selecting effective reinforcers. Caregiver interviews are frequently utilized but are not necessarily accurate predictors of reinforcers (e.g., Green, Reid, Canipe, & Gardner, 1991). As an alternative, Pace, Martin, Ivancic, Edwards, Iwata, and Page (1985) described a systematic preference assessment. Participants were presented with various stimuli, one at a time, and their approach or non-approach of the item was measured. Items which were approached were found to be more reinforcing than non-approached items when utilized in a behavior change program. Since then, several variations have been developed, including forced choice/paired stimulus (FC/PS; Fisher, Piazza, Bowman, Hagopian, Owens, & Slevin, 1992; Mason, McGee, Farmer-Dougan, & Risley, 1989), multiple stimulus presentations with replacement (MSW; Windsor, Piche, & Locke (1994), and the Multiple Stimulus Without Replacement (MSWO; DeLeon & Iwata 1996). In the PS approach, two potentially reinforcing items are presented at the same time and the participant is asked to \"pick one.\" All items are compared to one another and their position on the table is controlled. In the MSW approach, all items are available to the participant at the same time. Once a selection is made and the participant accesses the item, it is placed back in the lineup for a second selection. Position in the line is controlled for by rotating the items after each selection. The MSWO procedure is similar except that once an item has been chosen, it is removed from the lineup. It is assumed that those items which are chosen first will function more effectively as reinforcers. In addition to being able to accurately identify reinforcing items, it is critical to applied clinicians that preference assessment techniques are able to be carried out in the most efficient manner, with regard to duration of procedure. In order to better serve clients, it would be helpful to know which preference assessment techniques yield the most accurate prediction of reinforcers in the least amount of administration time. DeLe on and Iwata (1996) explored this topic by comparing the paired stimulus (PS) presentation, with the multiple stimuli with and without replacement presentations (MSW and MSWO). They found that the MSW was the fastest to administer but that the MSWO and the PS \"identified more stimuli that are at least minimally reinforcing than does the MS procedure\" (p. 530). Thus, the purpose of the current research was to compare administration time of the MSWO and the PS assessments and their ability to accurately identify reinforcers given a sorting task. Method Participants and Setting Four individuals with a primary diagnosis of autism and varying levels of mental retardation served as participants. They lived in a private residential facility for individuals with developmental disabilities. These four males (ranging in ages, 14-20 years) followed simple one-step directions and were generally compliant throughout the study. One participant communicated using vocal speech, while the other three communicated via simple gestures and limited use of picture symbols. All participants required assistance with daily living skills such as tooth brushing and bathing. They were all able to feed themselves if food was cut up to the typical size. The study was conducted at the residential school facility that the participants attended. Sessions were held in the school building in a room measuring 21' x 12'. This room had one window, eight chairs, and a large table. Phase 1 Purpose and dependent measure The purpose of phase 1 was to conduct preference assessments to determine length of time to complete and the relative rankings obtained. …","PeriodicalId":88717,"journal":{"name":"The behavior analyst today","volume":"10 1","pages":"456-466"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"14","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Clinical Utility of Two Reinforcement Preference Assessment Techniques: A Comparison of Duration of Assessment and Identification of Functional Reinforcers.\",\"authors\":\"Traci Lanner, B. Nichols, S. Field, J. Hanson, Thomas Zane\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/H0100683\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Educators have relied on the use of positive reinforcement techniques for many years to modify human behavior (e.g., Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007). One particular challenge in working with individuals who exhibit developmental disabilities such as autism is that of selecting effective reinforcers. Caregiver interviews are frequently utilized but are not necessarily accurate predictors of reinforcers (e.g., Green, Reid, Canipe, & Gardner, 1991). As an alternative, Pace, Martin, Ivancic, Edwards, Iwata, and Page (1985) described a systematic preference assessment. Participants were presented with various stimuli, one at a time, and their approach or non-approach of the item was measured. Items which were approached were found to be more reinforcing than non-approached items when utilized in a behavior change program. Since then, several variations have been developed, including forced choice/paired stimulus (FC/PS; Fisher, Piazza, Bowman, Hagopian, Owens, & Slevin, 1992; Mason, McGee, Farmer-Dougan, & Risley, 1989), multiple stimulus presentations with replacement (MSW; Windsor, Piche, & Locke (1994), and the Multiple Stimulus Without Replacement (MSWO; DeLeon & Iwata 1996). In the PS approach, two potentially reinforcing items are presented at the same time and the participant is asked to \\\"pick one.\\\" All items are compared to one another and their position on the table is controlled. In the MSW approach, all items are available to the participant at the same time. Once a selection is made and the participant accesses the item, it is placed back in the lineup for a second selection. Position in the line is controlled for by rotating the items after each selection. The MSWO procedure is similar except that once an item has been chosen, it is removed from the lineup. It is assumed that those items which are chosen first will function more effectively as reinforcers. In addition to being able to accurately identify reinforcing items, it is critical to applied clinicians that preference assessment techniques are able to be carried out in the most efficient manner, with regard to duration of procedure. In order to better serve clients, it would be helpful to know which preference assessment techniques yield the most accurate prediction of reinforcers in the least amount of administration time. DeLe on and Iwata (1996) explored this topic by comparing the paired stimulus (PS) presentation, with the multiple stimuli with and without replacement presentations (MSW and MSWO). They found that the MSW was the fastest to administer but that the MSWO and the PS \\\"identified more stimuli that are at least minimally reinforcing than does the MS procedure\\\" (p. 530). Thus, the purpose of the current research was to compare administration time of the MSWO and the PS assessments and their ability to accurately identify reinforcers given a sorting task. Method Participants and Setting Four individuals with a primary diagnosis of autism and varying levels of mental retardation served as participants. They lived in a private residential facility for individuals with developmental disabilities. These four males (ranging in ages, 14-20 years) followed simple one-step directions and were generally compliant throughout the study. One participant communicated using vocal speech, while the other three communicated via simple gestures and limited use of picture symbols. All participants required assistance with daily living skills such as tooth brushing and bathing. They were all able to feed themselves if food was cut up to the typical size. The study was conducted at the residential school facility that the participants attended. Sessions were held in the school building in a room measuring 21' x 12'. This room had one window, eight chairs, and a large table. Phase 1 Purpose and dependent measure The purpose of phase 1 was to conduct preference assessments to determine length of time to complete and the relative rankings obtained. …\",\"PeriodicalId\":88717,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The behavior analyst today\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"456-466\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-06-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"14\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The behavior analyst today\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/H0100683\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The behavior analyst today","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/H0100683","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

摘要

多年来,教育工作者一直依靠正强化技术来改变人类行为(例如,Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007)。在与表现出发育障碍(如自闭症)的个体一起工作时,一个特别的挑战是选择有效的强化物。看护人访谈经常被使用,但不一定是准确的预测强化因素(例如,Green, Reid, Canipe, & Gardner, 1991)。作为替代方案,Pace、Martin、Ivancic、Edwards、Iwata和Page(1985)描述了一种系统偏好评估。研究人员给参与者提供了不同的刺激,一次一个,并测量了他们对项目的接近或不接近。当在行为改变项目中使用时,发现被接近的项目比未接近的项目更具强化作用。从那以后,出现了几种变体,包括强迫选择/配对刺激(FC/PS;Fisher, Piazza, Bowman, Hagopian, Owens, & Slevin, 1992;Mason, McGee, Farmer-Dougan, & Risley, 1989),具有替代的多重刺激呈现(MSW;Windsor, Piche, & Locke(1994)和无替代的多重刺激(MSWO;DeLeon & Iwata 1996)。在PS方法中,同时呈现两个潜在的强化项目,并要求参与者“选择一个”。所有的物品都要相互比较,并控制它们在桌子上的位置。在都市固体废物的方法中,所有的项目都可以同时提供给参与者。一旦做出选择并且参与者访问该项目,它将被放回到队列中进行第二次选择。通过在每次选择后旋转项目来控制行中的位置。MSWO程序与此类似,只是一旦一个项目被选中,它就会从阵容中移除。假设那些最先被选择的项目将更有效地发挥强化作用。除了能够准确地识别强化项目外,对于应用临床医生来说,偏好评估技术能够以最有效的方式进行是至关重要的,涉及到程序的持续时间。为了更好地为客户服务,了解哪种偏好评估技术在最少的管理时间内产生最准确的强化预测是有帮助的。DeLe on和Iwata(1996)通过比较配对刺激(PS)呈现与有或没有替代呈现的多重刺激(MSW和MSWO)来探讨这一主题。他们发现MSW是最快实施的,但是MSWO和PS“比MS程序识别出更多至少是最低限度强化的刺激”(第530页)。因此,本研究的目的是比较MSWO和PS评估的给药时间,以及它们在分类任务中准确识别强化物的能力。方法:选取4名初诊为自闭症且智力发育迟滞的个体作为研究对象。他们住在一个为有发育障碍的人设立的私人住宅设施里。这四名男性(年龄在14-20岁之间)遵循简单的一步指令,并在整个研究过程中普遍顺从。一名参与者使用语音进行交流,而其他三名参与者通过简单的手势和有限的图片符号进行交流。所有参与者都需要日常生活技能的帮助,如刷牙和洗澡。如果把食物切成典型的大小,它们都能养活自己。这项研究是在参与者就读的寄宿学校进行的。会议在学校大楼的一个21英尺x 12英尺的房间里举行。这个房间有一扇窗户,八把椅子和一张大桌子。第一阶段的目的是进行偏好评估,以确定完成的时间长度和获得的相对排名。...
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Clinical Utility of Two Reinforcement Preference Assessment Techniques: A Comparison of Duration of Assessment and Identification of Functional Reinforcers.
Educators have relied on the use of positive reinforcement techniques for many years to modify human behavior (e.g., Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007). One particular challenge in working with individuals who exhibit developmental disabilities such as autism is that of selecting effective reinforcers. Caregiver interviews are frequently utilized but are not necessarily accurate predictors of reinforcers (e.g., Green, Reid, Canipe, & Gardner, 1991). As an alternative, Pace, Martin, Ivancic, Edwards, Iwata, and Page (1985) described a systematic preference assessment. Participants were presented with various stimuli, one at a time, and their approach or non-approach of the item was measured. Items which were approached were found to be more reinforcing than non-approached items when utilized in a behavior change program. Since then, several variations have been developed, including forced choice/paired stimulus (FC/PS; Fisher, Piazza, Bowman, Hagopian, Owens, & Slevin, 1992; Mason, McGee, Farmer-Dougan, & Risley, 1989), multiple stimulus presentations with replacement (MSW; Windsor, Piche, & Locke (1994), and the Multiple Stimulus Without Replacement (MSWO; DeLeon & Iwata 1996). In the PS approach, two potentially reinforcing items are presented at the same time and the participant is asked to "pick one." All items are compared to one another and their position on the table is controlled. In the MSW approach, all items are available to the participant at the same time. Once a selection is made and the participant accesses the item, it is placed back in the lineup for a second selection. Position in the line is controlled for by rotating the items after each selection. The MSWO procedure is similar except that once an item has been chosen, it is removed from the lineup. It is assumed that those items which are chosen first will function more effectively as reinforcers. In addition to being able to accurately identify reinforcing items, it is critical to applied clinicians that preference assessment techniques are able to be carried out in the most efficient manner, with regard to duration of procedure. In order to better serve clients, it would be helpful to know which preference assessment techniques yield the most accurate prediction of reinforcers in the least amount of administration time. DeLe on and Iwata (1996) explored this topic by comparing the paired stimulus (PS) presentation, with the multiple stimuli with and without replacement presentations (MSW and MSWO). They found that the MSW was the fastest to administer but that the MSWO and the PS "identified more stimuli that are at least minimally reinforcing than does the MS procedure" (p. 530). Thus, the purpose of the current research was to compare administration time of the MSWO and the PS assessments and their ability to accurately identify reinforcers given a sorting task. Method Participants and Setting Four individuals with a primary diagnosis of autism and varying levels of mental retardation served as participants. They lived in a private residential facility for individuals with developmental disabilities. These four males (ranging in ages, 14-20 years) followed simple one-step directions and were generally compliant throughout the study. One participant communicated using vocal speech, while the other three communicated via simple gestures and limited use of picture symbols. All participants required assistance with daily living skills such as tooth brushing and bathing. They were all able to feed themselves if food was cut up to the typical size. The study was conducted at the residential school facility that the participants attended. Sessions were held in the school building in a room measuring 21' x 12'. This room had one window, eight chairs, and a large table. Phase 1 Purpose and dependent measure The purpose of phase 1 was to conduct preference assessments to determine length of time to complete and the relative rankings obtained. …
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Functional and morphological maturation of the full-sized and mini-pig corpus luteum by programmed cell death mechanism. Procedural aspects that control discounting rates when using the fill-in-the-blank and multiple-choice methods On the sequential and concurrent presentation of trials establishing prerequisites for emergent relations. Using SAFMEDS and direct instruction to teach the model of hierarchical complexity The zeitgeist of behavior analytic research in the 21st century: A keyword analysis.
×
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