Reforzamiento

JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS

1996, 29, 1–9

NUMBER

1 (SPRING 1996)

USING A CHOICE ASSESSMENT TO PREDICT REINFORCER EFFECTIVENESS CATHLEEN C. PIAZZA, WAYNE W. FISHER, LOUIS P. HAGOPIAN, LYNN G. BOWMAN, AND LISA TOOLE
KENNEDY KRIEGER INSTITUTE AND THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE

A choice assessment has been found to be a more accurate method of identifyingpref­ erences than is single-item presentation. However, it is not clear whether the effectiveness of reinforcement varies positively with the degree of preference (i.e., whether the relative preference based on the results of a choice assessment predicts relative reinforcer effec­ tiveness). In the current study, we attempted to address this question by categorizing stimuli as high, middle, and lowpreference based on the results of a choice assessment, and then comparing the reinforcing effectiveness of these stimuli using a concurrent operants paradigm. High-preference stimuli consistently functioned as reinforcers for all 4 clients. Middle-preference stimuli functioned as reinforcers for 2 clients, but only when compared with low-preference stimuli. Low-preference stimuli did not functionas rein­ forcers when compared to high- and middle-preference stimuli. These results suggest that a choice assessment can be used to predict the relative reinforcing value of various stimuli, which, in turn, may help to improve programs for clients with severe to profound dis­ abilities. DESCRIPTORS: assessment, concurrent operants, predictive validity, reinforcer pref­ erence, developmentaldisabilities

Most systematic assessments of reinforcers for persons with severe to profound disabilities have focused on either identifying preferred stimuli without testing whether the stimuli were functional reinforcers (e.g., Cautela & Kastenbaum, 1967; Homme, Csanyi, Gonzales, & Rechs, 1969) or assessing the reinforcing effects of stimuli without first using a specific procedure for predictingwhich stimuli would function as reinforcers (e.g., Dattilo, 1986; Wacker, Berg, Wiggins, Muldoon, & Cavanaugh, 1985). Because the reinforcing effects of specific stimuli tend to vary across clients and contexts (e.g., Fehr, Wacker, Trezise, Lennon, & Meyerson, 1979; Rincover, Newsom, Lovaas, & Koegel,
This investigation was supported in part by Grant MCJ249149-02 from the Maternal and Child HealthService of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Requests for reprints should be addressed to Cathleen C. Piazza, Neurobehavioral Unit, Kennedy Krie­ ger Institute, 707 N. Broadway, Baltimore, Maryland 21205.

1977), it is possible that a large number of stimuli would need to be evaluated in order to identify functional reinforcers for a given individual. Thus, Pace, Ivancic, Edwards,Iwata, and Page (1985) made an important advance in this area by integrating a simple procedure for identifying preferred stimuli based on direct observation of approach re­ sponses (i.e., preference assessment) with a method for quickly assessing whether preferred stimuli actually functioned as reinforcers (i.e., reinforcer assessment). There are important methodological and conceptualdistinctions between preference and reinforcer assessments. During prefer­ ence assessments, a relatively large number of stimuli are evaluated to identify preferred stimuli. The reinforcing effects of a small subset of stimuli (i.e., the highly preferred stimuli) are then evaluated during the reinforcer assessment. Although the preference assessment is an efficient procedure for iden­ tifying potentialreinforcers from a large 1


2

CATHLEEN C. PIAZZA et al.
while saying ‘‘sit down’’). Matt was a 19year-old male with Down syndrome and se­ vere to profound mental retardation. He could understand some simple two-step commands that occurred frequently in his daily routine and common object names and actions. Rusty was a 10-year-old male with autism and profound mental retardation who used...