%0 Generic %1 ABA2007-295-66 %A Lee, May S.H. %A Yu, C.T. %A Martin, Toby L. %B 33rd Annual Convention of the Association for Behavior Analysis %D 2007 %K cv developmental-disabilities matching-law poster preference-assessment presentation reinforcement %T Preference and stimulus reinforcing values in preference assessment: do they follow the matching law? %X Using preference assessments to identify reinforcers for persons with severe and profound developmental disabilities assumes that preferences are positively correlated to the stimulus reinforcing values. We examined whether this relationship follows the matching law (Herrnstein, 1970) by controlling the reinforcing values of different stimuli to be included in the preference assessment. Participants were three adults with severe to profound mental retardation and limited to no communication skills. Reinforcer assessments were first conducted for each participant until 6 stimuli have been identified, including 2 weak, 2 moderate, and 2 strong reinforcers. Stimulus reinforcing value was defined by the percent change in rate of responding from baseline phases to reinforcement phases. Preference assessments were then conducted using a paired-stimulus procedure. Interobserver reliability checks were conducted for each participant and the mean percent agreement across participants was 98%. Results show that preferences and stimulus reinforcing values did not correlate positively for two of the three participants and therefore were not described by the matching law. These results imply caution regarding the common assumption that more preferred stimuli are more likely to be reinforcers.

@misc{ABA2007-295-66, abstract = {Using preference assessments to identify reinforcers for persons with severe and profound developmental disabilities assumes that preferences are positively correlated to the stimulus reinforcing values. We examined whether this relationship follows the matching law (Herrnstein, 1970) by controlling the reinforcing values of different stimuli to be included in the preference assessment. Participants were three adults with severe to profound mental retardation and limited to no communication skills. Reinforcer assessments were first conducted for each participant until 6 stimuli have been identified, including 2 weak, 2 moderate, and 2 strong reinforcers. Stimulus reinforcing value was defined by the percent change in rate of responding from baseline phases to reinforcement phases. Preference assessments were then conducted using a paired-stimulus procedure. Interobserver reliability checks were conducted for each participant and the mean percent agreement across participants was 98%. Results show that preferences and stimulus reinforcing values did not correlate positively for two of the three participants and therefore were not described by the matching law. These results imply caution regarding the common assumption that more preferred stimuli are more likely to be reinforcers.}, added-at = {2007-06-25T22:31:34.000+0200}, author = {Lee, May S.H. and Yu, C.T. and Martin, Toby L.}, biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/2c200e08305f8a5a5bbb12ecffbabca3c/toby}, booktitle = {33rd Annual Convention of the Association for Behavior Analysis}, interhash = {9d2ce405207bbfd402c21920ea3be5bf}, intrahash = {c200e08305f8a5a5bbb12ecffbabca3c}, keywords = {cv developmental-disabilities matching-law poster preference-assessment presentation reinforcement}, month = May, organization = {Association for Behavior Analysis}, timestamp = {2007-09-11T03:54:16.000+0200}, title = {Preference and stimulus reinforcing values in preference assessment: do they follow the matching law?}, type = {poster presentation}, year = 2007 }