Reinforcer Assessment Study Notes

Focus: Discussion on reinforcer assessment methods and related studies assigned for reading.
Overview of studies:
- Cody and colleagues: Concurrent reinforcer assessment.
- Fiske and colleagues: Token reinforcer value using multiple schedule assessment.
- Rohn and colleagues: Progressive ratio schedule.

Cody and colleagues: Conducted concurrent reinforcer assessments in an early childhood education setting.
Fiske and colleagues: Evaluated the reinforcing efficacy of tokens using a multiple schedule assessment approach.
Rohn and colleagues: Used progressive ratio scheduling to assess reinforcement effectiveness.
Northup and colleagues: Compared verbal and pictorial choice procedures for preference assessments.
Dale Leon and colleagues: Implemented a progressive schedule assessment.
Piazza and colleagues: Provided additional insights into preference and reinforcer assessments.

Location: University of Kansas early childhood education center, a daycare/preschool environment.
Participants: 9 children aged 18 to 29 months; 8 typically developing, 1 had a significant physical impairment.
Observation: Caregiver reports used more frequently than formal preference assessments.
Research Gap: Poor correspondence between indirect assessments (e.g., caregiver interviews) and direct assessments evaluating preferences.

Evaluate generality of findings that direct assessments predict reinforcers more effectively than indirect assessments in young children.

Procedure: Conducted teacher interviews to generate a list of 10 preferred items.
Direct Assessment: Implemented paired stimulus preference assessment with items from the teachers' list.
Ranking: Created rankings based on teacher interviews and direct preference assessments.

Concurrent Operant Reinforcer Assessment Setup:
- Consisted of three microswitches, each associated with different stimuli (top-ranked from teacher and direct assessments, and a control condition).
- For the microswitch assessment, pressing a switch resulted in 15 seconds of access to the stimulus and experimenter attention; no consequences for control.
- For the zone assessment, toddlers accessed zones marked off on the floor, each associated with preferred stimuli and a control zone.
- Response Frequency Comparison: Assessed how often toddlers pressed microswitches or accessed zones for stimuli.

Alice's Example: Notable discrepancies in rankings between teacher and direct assessment:
- Item favored by direct assessment (Play Doh) was least preferred by teachers (8th rank).
- A significant negative correlation was observed between rankings from the two assessment types for six items assessed for Alice.
Time Allocation: Alice spent most time in the Play Doh zone, demonstrating it functioned as a more effective reinforcer than the baby doll favored by teachers.
Overall Observation: Items rated highly in teacher interviews may not reflect actual reinforcing efficacy, but they still functioned as reinforcers when Play Doh was unavailable.

Indirect and direct assessments show poor alignment in many cases; direct assessments yield higher efficacy in predicting actual reinforcers.
Teacher’s input can still guide the identification of functional reinforcers.

Older study pivotal to understanding the relation between schedule requirements and reinforcement efficacy.

Explore how progressive ratio schedules affect the reinforcing efficacy of items.

Participants: 4 teenage participants aged 13 to 18 with developmental disabilities.
Setting: Varied between a small school room and a hospital room.
Procedure: Initiated with a paired stimulus preference assessment; followed by a progressive ratio schedule to gauge reinforcing power.
Progressive Ratio Operation: Required increasing responses to earn reinforcers; ratio requirements increased until no response occurred for 5 min.
Adjustments made for preventing ratio strain; sessions reset to lowest value for subsequent sessions.

Bucky's Data Overview: Demonstrated higher response rates for the microphone compared to a less efficacious musical toy.
- Average breaking point for microphone: PR step size 10; musical toy: PR step size 5.
Behavioral Outcomes: Reinforcer assessments showed that stimuli efficacy can indicate response output under varying task requirements.
- Important implications for behavior treatments in applied settings; stimuli effectiveness may vary under high-effort versus low-effort tasks.

Investigated the use of multiple schedules for assessing the reinforcing value of tokens, factoring in the potential decrease in reinforcing value through aversive pairing and disruption.

Participants: 4 children aged 5 to 11 with autism spectrum disorder at a center-based school.
Initial Assessment: Brief MSWO preference assessment to identify preferred items.
Reinforcement Assessment: Involved alternating between extinction and reinforcement components, measuring responses per minute.
Multiple Schedule Components:
1. Extinction (no reinforcement).
2. Tokens with no backup.
3. Yoked fixed ratio (yoked FR).
4. Tokens with backup reinforcers.
5. Primary reinforcement access.

Conclusion: Identified relative reinforcing efficacy through response rates across different components.
- MSA assessed reinforcers quicker compared to more traditional methods (e.g., progressive ratio assessments).
- Critical finding: Tokens alone did not serve as effective reinforcers without exchange for backup reinforcers.

Conferencing on Reinforcer Assessment Methods:
- Variation in methodologies leads to differing insights regarding reinforcer efficacy.
- Each type of assessment offers unique advantages, reflecting the complexity of motivating behaviors in therapeutic settings.
- Reflection on the utility of understanding preference versus reinforcement, especially for populations with developmental disabilities.