This study compared two strategies for increasing accurate responding on a low-preference academic task by interspersing presentations of a preferred academic task. Five children attending a preschool program for children with delayed language development participated in this study. Preferred and nonpreferred tasks were identified through a multiple-stimulus, free-operant preference assessment. Contingent access to a preferred academic task was associated with improved response accuracy when compared to noncontingent access to that activity for 3 students. For 1 student, noncontingent access to the preferred activity led to improved response accuracy, and 1 student’s analysis suggested the importance of procedural variety. The implications of these findings for use of preference assessments to devise instructional sequences that improve student responding are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Belfiore, P.J., Lee, D.L., Vargas, A.U., & Skinner, C.H. (1997). Effects of high-preference single-digit mathematics problem completion on multiple-digit mathematics problem performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 327-330.
2.
Clarke, S., Dunlap, G., Foster-Johnson, L., Childs, K.E., Wilson, D., White, R., et al. (1995). Improving the conduct of students with behavioral disorders by incorporating student interests into curricular activities. Behavioral Disorders, 20, 221-237.
3.
Cooke, N.L., Guzaukas, R., Pressley, J.S., & Kerr, K. (1993). Effects of using a ratio of new items to review items during drill and practice: Three experiments. Education and Treatment of Children, 16, 213-234.
4.
Cooke, N.L., & Reichard, S.M. (1996). The effects of different interspersal drill ratios on acquisition and generalization of multiplication facts. Education and Treatment of Children, 19, 124-142.
5.
Daly, E.J., III, Witt, J.C., Martens, B.K., & Dool, E.J. (1997). A model for conducting functional analysis of academic performance problems. School Psychology Review, 26, 554-574.
6.
DeLeon, I.G., & Iwata, B.A., (1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 519-533.
7.
Dickinson, D.J., & Butt, J.A. (1989). The effects of success and failure on the on-task behavior of high achieving students. Education and Treatment of Children, 12, 243-253.
8.
Dunlap, G., & Koegel, R.L. (1980). Motivating autistic children through stimulus variation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 619-627.
9.
Dunlap, G., White, R., Vera, A., Wilson, D., & Panacek, L. (1996). The effects of component, assessment-based curricular modifications on the classroom behavior of children with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Behavioral Education, 4, 481-500.
10.
Foster-Johnson, L., Ferro, J., & Dunlap, G. (1994). Preferred curricular activities and reduced problem behaviors in students with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 493-504.
11.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Frenstrom, P., & Hohn, M. (1991). Toward a possible reintegration of behaviorally disordered students. Behavioral Disorders, 16, 133-147.
12.
Gickling, E.E., & Thompson, V.P. (1985). A personal view of curriculum-based assessment. Exceptional Children, 52, 205-218.
13.
Gresham, F.M., MacMillan, D.L., & Bocian, K.M. (1997). Teachers as “tests”: Differential validity of teacher judgments in identifying students at risk for learning difficulties. School Psychology Review, 26, 47-60.
14.
Hosie, T.W., Gentile, J.R., & Carroll, J.D. (1974). Pupil preferences and the Premack principle. American Educational Research Journal, 11, 241-247.
15.
Howell, K.W., Fox, S.L., & Morehead, M.K. (1993). Curriculum-based evaluation: Teaching and decision making. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
16.
Kern, L., Childs, K.E., Dunlap, G., Clarke, S., & Falk, G.D. (1994). Using assessment-based curricular intervention to improve the classroom behavior of a student with emotional and behavioral challenges. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 7-20.
17.
Logan, P., & Skinner, C.H. (1998). Improving students’ perceptions of a mathematics assignment by increasing problem completion rates: Is problem completion a reinforcing event? School Psychology Quarterly, 13, 322-331.
18.
Lloyd, J.W., Repp, A.C., & Singh, N.N. (1991). The regular education initiative: Alternative perspectives on concepts, issues, and models. Sycamore, IL: Sycamore.
19.
Martens, B.K., & Witt, J.C. (1988). On the ecological validity of behavior modification. In J.C. Witt, S.N. Elliott, & F.M. Gresham (Eds.), Handbook of behavior therapy in education (pp. 325-342). New York: Plenum.
20.
Neef, N.A., Iwata, B.A., & Page, T.J. (1977). The effects of known-item interspersal on acquisition and retention of spelling and sight-reading words. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 738.
21.
Neef, N.A., Iwata, B.A., & Page, T.J. (1980). The effects of interspersal training versus high-density reinforcement on spelling acquisition and retention. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 153-158.
22.
Noell, G.H., Freeland, J.T., Witt, J.C., & Gansle, K.A. (in press). Using brief assessments to identify effective interventions for individual students. Journal of School Psychology.
23.
Noell, G.H., Gansle, K.A., Witt, J.C., Whitmarsh, E.L., Freeland, J.T., LaFleur, L.H., et al. (1998). Effects of contingent reward and instruction on oral reading performance at differing levels of passage difficulty. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 659-664.
24.
Noell, G.H., Roane, H.S., VanDerHeyden, A.M., Whitmarsh, E.L., & Gatti, S.L. (2000). Programming for communication in the classroom following an assessment of skill and performance deficits. School Psychology Review, 29, 429-442.
25.
Peterson, C.A. (1999). Services to young children: Functional/behavioral conceptions of services to young children. In D.J. Reschly, W.D. Tilly III, & J.P. Grimes (Eds.), Special education in transition: Functional assessment and noncategorical programming (pp. 169-192). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
26.
Premack, D. (1959). Toward empirical behavior laws: I. Positive reinforcement. Psychological Review, 66, 219-233.
27.
Roane, H.S., Vollmer, T.R., Ringdahl, J.E., & Marcus, B.A. (1998). Evaluation of a brief stimulus preference assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 605-620.
28.
Shapiro, E.S. (1996). Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and intervention (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
29.
Sheridan, S.M., & Gutkin, T.B. (2000). The ecology of school psychology: Examining and changing our paradigm for the 21st century. School Psychology Review, 29, 485-501.
30.
Thousand, J.S., & Villa, R.A. (1990). Strategies for educating learners with severe disabilities within their local home and school communities. Focus of Exceptional Children, 23, 1-24.
31.
Timberlake, W., & Farmer-Dougan, V.A. (1991). Reinforcement in applied settings: Figuring out ahead of time what will work. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 379-391.
32.
Wildmon, M.E., Skinner, C.H., McCurdy, M., & Sims, S. (1999). Improving students’ perception of the “dreaded mathematics word problem assignment” by giving them more word problems. Psychology in the Schools, 36, 319-325.
