Unit 2 Study Questions These questions are a guide to help you navigate the readings for this unit. Please note that not all questions are required for points. Those questions that will be graded for points are indicated below. The following questions refer to the DeLeon & Iwata (1996) study (#1 and #4 are required) 1 Describe the preference assessments compared in Experiment 1. 2 Describe the results of Experiment 1 (i.e., were any of the assessments better than others or did they produce similar results)? 3 Why did the authors run Experiment 2; what information were they looking for? 4 How did the results in Experiment 2 compare with those found in Experiment 1? 5 The authors discuss potential differences in the reinforcer effectiveness of food vs. non-food stimuli which may have contributed to results in their study. Describe what those differences could be contributed to and how they may have affected their findings. The following questions relate to the Ivancic (2000) article (#1 and #3 are required) 1 How does a single stimulus preference assessment compare to a paired stimulus preference assessment? 2 What are some limitations of preference assessment findings? 3 Describe what information is provided by evaluating reinforcer effectiveness that a preference assessment alone does not provide. 4 Explain how a establishing operation might affect preference assessment results. The following questions relate to the Gottschalk et al. (2000) article (#1 and #2 are required) 1 How might establishing operations effect preference assessments? 2 What do the authors suggest are some implications of the results of this study?

Unit 1 Study Questions

These questions are a guide to help you navigate the readings for this unit and prepare for the unit quiz. Please note that not all questions are required for points. Those questions that will be graded for points are indicated below.

The following three questions refer to the Fisher et al. (1992) study. (#1 and #2 are required)

1 Describe the preference assessment methods compared in this study.

2 What did the results of Phase 1 suggest regarding the use of forced-choice assessment and how did these findings compare to those found in the Pace et al. (1985) study?

3 Why did the authors choose to use a concurrent operants paradigm and what are its advantages over the use of independent operant paradigms?

The following questions refer to the Windsor & Locke (1994) study. (#1 and #2 are required)

1 What are two possible reasons why staff report of learner preference may not closely match results found in systematic assessments?

2 Describe the preference assessment methods compared in this study.

3 What were the four dimensions of preference that were measured during group and paired presentations? Briefly describe the results for each.

4 Describe the four major findings in this study.

The following questions refer to the DeLeon et al. (2001) article. (#1, #2, and #3 are required)

1 What are the advantages and disadvantages of using brief preference assessment methods vs. more lengthy methods to assess preference?

2 How might conducting frequent brief preference assessment just prior to behavioral training sessions be beneficial and what kind of information is gained by doing this vs. less frequent lengthier assessment methods?

3 A criticism of studies on preference and reinforcer assessments has been that dependent measures have involved simple free-operant responses that required little effort on the participants' parts. Do the findings in this study concur with those criticisms? Why or why not?

4 What are three potential mechanisms behind the effectiveness of pre-session or within-session preference assessment on sustained responding?

5 Describe the limitations to this study and how those limitations might affect the use of such procedures in behavioral treatment.

• DeLeon, I.G., & Iwata, B.A. (1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 519-532.Download DeLeon, I.G., & Iwata, B.A. (1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 519-532.
• Gottschalk, J. M., Libby, M. E., & Graff, R. B. (2000). The effects of establishing operations on preference assessment outcomes. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33(1), 85-88.Download Gottschalk, J. M., Libby, M. E., & Graff, R. B. (2000). The effects of establishing operations on preference assessment outcomes. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33(1), 85-88.
• Ivancic, M. T. (2000). Stimulus preference and reinforcer assessment applications. In J. E. Carr & J. Austin (Eds.), Handbook of applied behavior analysis (pp. 19-38). Reno, NV: Context Press.
• DeLeon, I. G., Fisher, W. W., Catter, V. R., Maglieri, K., Herman, K., & Marhefka, J. (2001). Examination of relative reinforcement effects of stimuli identified through pretreatment and daily brief preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 463-473.Download DeLeon, I. G., Fisher, W. W., Catter, V. R., Maglieri, K., Herman, K., & Marhefka, J. (2001). Examination of relative reinforcement effects of stimuli identified through pretreatment and daily brief preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 463-473.
• 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.Download 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.
• Windsor, J., Piche, L. M., & Locke, P. A., (1994). Preference testing: A comparison of two presentation methods. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 15, 439-455.