A comprehensive evaluation of reinforcer identification processes for persons with profound multiple handicaps.

We evaluated comprehensively a preference assessment for identifying reinforcers for persons with profound multiple handicaps. Four experiments were conducted involving 18 individuals. Results of Experiment 1 replicated previous findings in that the assessment identified student preferences for respective stimuli, and caregiver opinion of preferences did not coincide with the systematic assessment. Results of Experiment 2 indicated highly preferred stimuli were likely to function as reinforcers in training programs, whereas stimuli not highly preferred did not function as reinforcers. Results of Experiment 3 suggested the 12 stimuli used in the assessment represented a comprehensive stimulus set for identifying preferences, although the utility of the set sometimes could be enhanced by caregiver opinion. Results of Experiment 4 indicated the assessment identified preferences likely to be maintained over time. Overall, results are discussed in terms of identifying limits and alternatives to a behavioral teaching technology when applied to persons with profound multiple handicaps.

[1]  D. Reid,et al.  Teaching persons with profound multiple handicaps: a review of the effects of behavioral research. , 1991, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[2]  M. B. Parsons,et al.  Assessing food preferences among persons with profound mental retardation: providing opportunities to make choices. , 1990, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[3]  T. Risley,et al.  A practical strategy for ongoing reinforcer assessment. , 1989, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[4]  D. Reid,et al.  Identifying reinforcers for persons with profound handicaps: staff opinion versus systematic assessment of preferences. , 1988, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[5]  B. Iwata,et al.  Negative reinforcement in applied behavior analysis: an emerging technology. , 1987, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[6]  B. Iwata,et al.  Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals. , 1985, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[7]  C. Crowell,et al.  Response deprivation and reinforcement in applied settings: A preliminary analysis. , 1980, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[8]  S. Zucker Training Eye-Pointing Behavior in a Nonabulatory Profoundly Mentally Retarded Child Using Contingent Vibratory Stimulation. , 1980 .

[9]  N. Azrin,et al.  Training and maintaining a retarded child's proper eating. , 1972, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[10]  H. Rice Operant Behavior in Vegetative Patients III: Methodological Considerations , 1968 .

[11]  D. Wacker,et al.  Evaluation of reinforcer preferences for profoundly handicapped students. , 1985, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[12]  J. Bailey Wanted: A rational search for the limiting conditions of habilitation in the retarded , 1981 .

[13]  N. R. Ellis On Training the Mentally Retarded , 1981 .

[14]  L. Meyerson,et al.  Vibration as a reinforcer with a profoundly retarded child. , 1969, Journal of applied behavior analysis.