pmc logo image
Logo of jabaJournal of Applied Behavior Analysis Web SiteSubscriber LoginJournal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior Web SiteSubscription InformationInformation for AuthorsJournal of Applied Behavior Analysis Web SiteJournal of Applied Behavior Analysis Web Site

Formats:

J Appl Behav Anal. 1996 Summer; 29(2): 201–212.
PMCID: PMC1279894
A comparison of reinforcer assessment methods: the utility of verbal and pictorial choice procedures.
J Northup, T George, K Jones, C Broussard, and T R Vollmer
Department of Psychology, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge 70803, USA.
Abstract
We compared three methods of stimulus preference assessment for verbal children and specifically evaluated the utility of a verbal choice procedure for assessing relative reinforcer value. Using a token system, relative preference for five categories of reinforcers, representing 15 different stimuli, was assessed by three methods: a reinforcer survey, a verbal stimulus-choice questionnaire, and a pictorial stimulus-choice procedure. Results showed that the verbal and pictorial stimulus-choice assessments accurately identified high- and low-preference categories for 3 of 4 participants. Survey results alone often rated multiple categories as high preference, were less likely to identify low-preference categories, and were less likely to correspond with the results of a reinforcer assessment.
Full text
Full text is available as a scanned copy of the original print version. Get a printable copy (PDF file) of the complete article (1.8M), or click on a page image below to browse page by page. Links to PubMed are also available for Selected References.
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • Bernstein DJ, Michael RL. The utility of verbal and behavioral assessments of value. J Exp Anal Behav. 1990 Nov;54(3):173–184. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Egel AL. Reinforcer variation: implications for motivating developmentally disabled children. J Appl Behav Anal. 1981 Fall;14(3):345–350. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Fisher W, Piazza CC, Bowman LG, Hagopian LP, Owens JC, Slevin I. A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. J Appl Behav Anal. 1992 Summer;25(2):491–498. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Guevremont DC, Osnes PG, Stokes TF. Programming maintenance after correspondence training interventions with children. J Appl Behav Anal. 1986 Summer;19(2):215–219. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Mason SA, McGee GG, Farmer-Dougan V, Risley TR. A practical strategy for ongoing reinforcer assessment. J Appl Behav Anal. 1989 Summer;22(2):171–179. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Northup J, Jones K, Broussard C, George T. A preliminary comparison of reinforcer assessment methods for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. J Appl Behav Anal. 1995 Spring;28(1):99–100. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Pace GM, Ivancic MT, Edwards GL, Iwata BA, Page TJ. Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals. J Appl Behav Anal. 1985 Fall;18(3):249–255. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Risley TR, Hart B. Developing correspondence between the non-verbal and verbal behavior of preschool children. J Appl Behav Anal. 1968 Winter;1(4):267–281. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Schwartz IS, Baer DM. Social validity assessments: is current practice state of the art? J Appl Behav Anal. 1991 Summer;24(2):189–204. [PMC free article] [PubMed]