Toussaint et al. (2016) and Edwards et al. (2016) Study Review

Vocabulary flashcards covering key definitions, experimental procedures, conditions, and findings from Toussaint et al. (2016) and Edwards et al. (2016).

Purposes of Toussaint et al. (2016)

To evaluate the effects of providing choice-making opportunities as a consequence and to replicate findings that children with and without disabilities prefer choice-making opportunities.

Target Equating Method (Toussaint et al., 2016)

Creating sets containing targets with a similar number of syllables.

Baseline Consequences (Toussaint et al., 2016)

No consequences were provided for either correct or incorrect responses.

Choice Condition Consequence (Toussaint et al., 2016)

The experimenter presented an array of edible reinforcers and allowed the participant to choose one upon a correct response.

No-Choice Condition Consequence (Toussaint et al., 2016)

An edible item was delivered based on the item selected in the previous choice condition (yoked) upon a correct response.

Control Condition Consequences (Toussaint et al., 2016)

Identical to baseline, except the therapist presented the relevant initial-link stimulus for correct and incorrect responses.

Preference Evaluation Conduct (Toussaint et al., 2016)

Three initial-link stimuli were presented, the participant was told to "pick one," and after selecting one, the corresponding antecedent stimulus and terminal-link contingency were presented.

Mastery Condition for Samuel and Patrick (Toussaint et al., 2016)

The choice condition, which required fewer sessions for them to reach mastery.

Participant Preference Outcome (Toussaint et al., 2016)

All participants preferred the choice-making conditions.

Purpose of the Yoking Procedure (Toussaint et al., 2016)

To isolate choice as the variable and control for item preference by keeping the reinforcer/item constant.

Purpose of Edwards et al. (2016)

To evaluate the rat's search-and-return performance under extinction/no reinforcement, variable-ratio (VR) 2.5 reinforcement, and fixed-ratio (FR) 1 continuous reinforcement.

Daily Food Access Restriction Purpose (Edwards et al., 2016)

To establish food as a positive reinforcer by creating an establishing operation.

Dependent Variables (Edwards et al., 2016)

Latency to locate the target and latency to return to the release point.

No-Reinforcement Condition Target Outcome (Edwards et al., 2016)

The target never delivered food when the rat reached it.

Variable-Ratio (VR) 2.5 Reinforcement Condition (Edwards et al., 2016)

Food was delivered on 4 of 10 randomly selected trials when the rat reached the target.

Fixed-Ratio (FR) 1 Continuous Reinforcement Condition (Edwards et al., 2016)

Food was delivered every time the rat reached the target.

Release Point Consequence (Edwards et al., 2016)

Food was delivered every time the rat returned to the release point across all conditions.

Shorter Latency to Target Conditions (Edwards et al., 2016)

Variable reinforcement and continuous reinforcement.

Shorter Latency to Release Point Condition (Edwards et al., 2016)

No reinforcement/extinction for finding the target.