A four-phase investigation was completed to analyze the utility of forced-choice preference assessments when response effort and reinforcer delays are altered within a subsequent reinforcer assessment. The results indicated that access to highly preferred stimuli continued to serve as a reinforcer when increased response effort was required. When reinforcer delay was increased, the utility of preferred stimuli to serve as a reinforcer was variable. Despite stimuli continuing to serve as reinforcers for academic task engagement, increased response effort and reinforcer delay resulted in an increased level of aberrant behavior.
Fisher, W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., Hagopian, L. P., Owens, J. C., & Slevin, I. (1992). A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 491-498.
2.
Neef, N. A., Mace, F. C., & Shade, D. (1993). Impulsivity in students with serious emotional disturbance: The interactive effects of reinforcer rate, delay, and quality. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 37-52.
3.
Piazza, C. C., Fisher, W. W., Hagopian, L. P., Bowman, L. G., & Toole, L. (1996). Using a choice assessment to predict reinforcer effectiveness. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 1-9.
4.
Piazza, C. C., Fisher, W. W., Hanley, G. P., Remick, M. L., Contrucci, S. A., & Aitken, T. L. (1997). The use of positive and negative reinforcement in the treatment of escape-maintained destructive behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 279-298.
