etadd_46(4) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities
etadd_46(4) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities
etadd_46(4) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
TABLE 1—(C<strong>on</strong>tinued)<br />
Studies Listed According to Categories with Number <strong>and</strong> Age of Participants (<strong>on</strong>ly those with a severe to profound disability), Experimental Design, Type of<br />
Stimuli Presented, Choice Format, <strong>and</strong> Results<br />
Stimuli Choice Format Results<br />
Category/Article Name n Age Design 12<br />
Reid, Pars<strong>on</strong>s, Towery, Lattimore, Green, & Brackett. (2007). 12 29–76 N/A Work materials MSWO vs. Mixed<br />
PC vs. Q<br />
Identifying work preferences am<strong>on</strong>g supported worked s with severe<br />
disabilities: Efficiency <strong>and</strong> accuracy of a preference-assessment<br />
protocol.<br />
Thoms<strong>on</strong>, Czarnecki, Martin, Yu, & Martin. (2007). 11 Adults N/A Edible/tangible PC vs. SS Positive<br />
Predicting optimal preference assessment methods for individuals with<br />
developmental disabilities.<br />
Mechanisms Underlying Preference<br />
DeLe<strong>on</strong>, Frank, Gregory, & Allman. (2009). 1 9–20 N/A Leisure items PC Positive<br />
On the corresp<strong>on</strong>dence between preference assessment outcomes <strong>and</strong><br />
progressive-rati<strong>on</strong> schedule of assessments of stimulus value.<br />
Glover, Roane, Kadey, & Grow. (2008). 3 10–16 AT w/ CC Unspecified PC Positive<br />
Preference for reinforcers under progressive- <strong>and</strong> fixed-ratio schedules: A<br />
CC w/ Reversal Positive<br />
comparis<strong>on</strong> of single <strong>and</strong> c<strong>on</strong>current arrangements.<br />
Lee, Yu, Martin, & Martin. (2010). 2 35, 37 Reversal Edible items PC Positive<br />
On the relati<strong>on</strong> between reinforcer efficacy <strong>and</strong> preference.<br />
Kodak, Lerman, Volkert, & Trosclair. (2007). 1 4–8 ME/Reversal Edible/tangible items CO Positive<br />
Further examinati<strong>on</strong> of factors that influence preference for positive 1 Reversal Positive<br />
versus negative reinforcement.<br />
1 Reversal Positive<br />
Milo, Mace, & Nevin. (2010). 3 6–10 CC w/ Reversal Edible items CO Positive<br />
The effects of c<strong>on</strong>stant versus varied reinforcers <strong>on</strong> preference <strong>and</strong><br />
resistance to change.<br />
Review of Choice <strong>and</strong> Preference Assessment / 581