Search

The purpose of these studies was to extend the use of stimulus preference assessments to children in foster care. In Study 1, subjects completed a computerized 4-point Likert-type questionnaire designed to assess preference for a wide range of stimuli and activities. Next, items identified as highly preferred (HP) and less preferred (LP) on the questionnaire were tested using a computerized paired-stimulus preference assessment. Results showed complete correspondence between the results of the computerized preference assessments for 11 of 17 subjects. Studies 2 and 3 evaluated whether the stimuli identified as HP in Study 1 would function as reinforcers. Overall, subjects allocated their engagement to HP items, and those HP items could be used as reinforcers for math problem completion. Collectively, these studies demonstrated that computerized preference assessments may be a feasible method of identifying preferences in the foster care system. Implications for their use in foster care are discussed.

Fjellstedt and Sulzer-Azaroff (1973) used differential reinforcement of short latencies to decrease a child's latency to comply with instructions. We replicated this contingency with a young man diagnosed with Asperger syndrome across two tasks (question answering and math problem solving). We added a differential reinforcement contingency to teach the participant to discriminate between math problems that could be answered rapidly and those that required more time for accurate performance.

We examined a combined approach of manipulating reinforcer dimensions and delay fading to promote the development of self-control with 3 students diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. First, we administered a brief computer-based assessment to determine the relative influence of reinforcer rate (R), reinforcer quality (Q), reinforcer immediacy (I), and effort (E) on the students' choices between concurrently presented math problems. During each session, one of these dimensions was placed in direct competition with another dimension (e.g., RvI involving math problem alternatives associated with high-rate delayed reinforcement vs. low-rate immediate reinforcement), with all possible pairs of dimensions presented across the six assessment conditions (RvQ, RvI, RvE, QvI, QvE, IvE). The assessment revealed that the choices of all 3 students were most influenced by immediacy of reinforcement, reflecting impulsivity. We then implemented a self-control training procedure in which reinforcer immediacy competed with another influential dimension (RvI or Qvl), and the delay associated with the higher rate or quality reinforcer alternative was progressively increased. The students allocated the majority of their time to the math problem alternatives yielding more frequent (high-rate) or preferred (high-quality) reinforcement despite delays of up to 24 hr. Subsequent readministration of portions of the assessment showed that self-control transferred across untrained dimensions of reinforcement.