Effects of social interaction on leisure item preference and reinforcer efficacy for children with autism
Marissa E. Kamlowsky
Department of Applied Behavioral Science, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Claudia L. Dozier
Department of Applied Behavioral Science, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA
Correspondence
Claudia L. Dozier, Department of Applied Behavioral Science, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, 66045, USA.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorStacha C. Leslie
Department of Applied Behavioral Science, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA
Search for more papers by this authorKy C. Kanaman
Department of Applied Behavioral Science, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA
Search for more papers by this authorSara C. Diaz de Villegas
Department of Applied Behavioral Science, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA
Search for more papers by this authorMarissa E. Kamlowsky
Department of Applied Behavioral Science, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Claudia L. Dozier
Department of Applied Behavioral Science, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA
Correspondence
Claudia L. Dozier, Department of Applied Behavioral Science, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, 66045, USA.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorStacha C. Leslie
Department of Applied Behavioral Science, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA
Search for more papers by this authorKy C. Kanaman
Department of Applied Behavioral Science, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA
Search for more papers by this authorSara C. Diaz de Villegas
Department of Applied Behavioral Science, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA
Search for more papers by this authorEditor-in-Chief: John Borrero
Handling Editor: Craig Strohmeier
Abstract
We replicated and extended Kanaman et al. (2022) by comparing outcomes of solitary (leisure items only), social (leisure items with social interaction), and combined (leisure items alone and leisure items with social interaction) stimulus preference assessments to determine the extent to which the inclusion of social interaction influenced the outcomes of preference assessments for five children with autism. We then conducted reinforcer assessments to determine the reinforcing efficacy of high- and low-preferred leisure items when presented with and without social interaction. The results showed that both high- and low-preferred items functioned as reinforcers to varying degrees for all participants and the inclusion of social interaction increased the reinforcing efficacy of some items for all participants. Additionally, the results showed that combined preference assessments predicted reinforcer assessment outcomes for two of five participants but produced false-negative outcomes for three participants. Clinical implications and directions for future research are discussed.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose regarding the current manuscript.
Open Research
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Data are available from the corresponding author upon request.
REFERENCES
- American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596
10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596 Google Scholar
- Call, N. A., Shillingsburg, M. A., Bowen, C. N., Reavis, A. R., & Findley, A. J. (2013). Direct assessment of preferences for social interactions in children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46(4), 821–826. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.69
- Carr, J. E., Nicolson, A. C., & Higbee, T. S. (2000). Evaluation of a brief multiple-stimulus preference assessment in a naturalistic context. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33(3), 353–357. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2000.33-353
- Conine, D. E., & Vollmer, T. R. (2018). Relative preferences for edible and leisure stimuli in children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 52(2), 557–573. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.525
- DeLeon, I. G., Frank, M. A., Gregory, M. K., & Allman, M. J. (2009). On the correspondence between preference assessment outcomes and progressive-ratio schedule assessments of stimulus value. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42(3), 729–733. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2009.42-729
- DeLeon, I. G., Iwata, B. A., & Roscoe, E. M. (1997). Displacement of leisure reinforcers by food during preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30(3), 475–484. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1997.30-475
- Dozier, C. L., Vollmer, T. R., Borrero, J. C., Borrero, C. S., Rapp, J. T., Bourret, J., & Gutierrez, A. (2007). Assessment of preference for behavioral treatment versus baseline conditions. Behavioral Interventions, 22(3), 245–261. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.241
- Fahmie, T. A., Iwata, B. A., & Jann, K. E. (2015). Comparison of edible and leisure reinforcers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48(2), 331–343. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.200
- Fisher, W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., Hagopian, L. P., Owens, J. C., & Slevin, I. (1992). A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25(2), 491–498. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1992.25-491
- Francisco, M. T., Borrero, J. C., & Sy, J. R. (2008). Evaluation of absolute and relative reinforcer value using progressive-ratio schedules. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41(2), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2008.41-189
- Goldberg, M. C., Allman, M. J., Hagopian, L. P., Triggs, M. M., Frank-Crawford, M. A., Mostofsky, S. H., Denckla, M. B., & DeLeon, I. G. (2017). Examining the reinforcing value of stimuli within social and non-social contexts in children with and without high-functioning autism. Autism, 21(7), 881–885. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361316655035
- Goldberg, N. M., Roscoe, E. M., Newman, Z. A., & Sedano, A. J. (2023). Single- vs. combined-category preference assessments for edible, leisure, and social-interaction stimuli. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 56(4), 787–803. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.1007
- Graff, R. B., Gibson, L., & Galiatsatos, G. T. (2006). The impact of high- and low-preference stimuli on vocational and academic performances of youths with severe disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39(1), 131–135. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2006.32-05
- Gutierrez, A., Fischer, A. J., Hale, M. N., Durocher, J. S., & Alessandri, M. (2013). Differential response patterns to the control condition between two procedures to assess social reinforcers for children with autism. Behavioral Interventions, 28(4), 353–361. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1372
- Hagopian, L. P., Long, E. S., & Rush, K. S. (2004). Preference assessment procedures for individuals with developmental disabilities. Behavior Modification, 28(5), 668–677. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445503259836
- Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., Lindberg, J. S., & Conners, J. (2003). Response-restriction analysis: I. Assessment of activity preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36(1), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2003.36-47
- Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & Roscoe, E. M. (2006). Some determinants of changes in preference over time. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39(2), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2006.163-04
- Harper, A. M., Dozier, C. L., Briggs, A. M., Diaz de Villegas, S., Ackerlund Brandt, J. A., & Jowett Hirst, E. S. (2021). Preference for and reinforcing efficacy of different types of attention in preschool children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 54(3), 882–902. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.814
- Hodos, W. (1961). Progressive ratio as a measure of reward strength. Science, 134(3483), 943–944. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.134.3483.943
- Jarmolowicz, D. P., & Lattal, K. A. (2010). On distinguishing progressively increasing response requirements for reinforcement. The Behavior Analyst, 33(1), 119–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03392207
- Jones, B. A., Dozier, C. L., & Neidert, P. L. (2014). An evaluation of the effects of access duration on preference assessment outcomes. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47(1), 209–213. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.100
- Kanaman, N. A., Hubbs, A. L., Dozier, C. L., Jones, B. A., Foley, E., & Ackerlund Brandt, J. (2022). Evaluating the effects of social interaction on the results of preference assessments for leisure items. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 55(2), 430–450. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.897
- Kelly, M. A., Roscoe, E. M., Hanley, G. P., & Schlichenmeyer, K. (2014). Evaluation of assessment methods for identifying social reinforcers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47(1), 113–135. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.107
- MacNaul, H., Cividini-Motta, C., Wilson, S., & Di Paola, H. (2021). A systematic review of research on stability of preference assessment outcomes across repeated administrations. Behavioral Interventions, 36(4), 962–983. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1797
- Morris, S. L., & Vollmer, T. R. (2019). Assessing preference for types of social interaction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 52(4), 1064–1075. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.597
- Nuernberger, J. E., Smith, C. A., Czapar, K. N., & Klatt, K. P. (2012). Assessing preference for social interaction in children diagnosed with autism. Behavioral Interventions, 27(1), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1336
- Pace, G. M., Ivancic, M. T., Edwards, G. L., Iwata, B. A., & Page, T. J. (1985). Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18(3), 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1985.18-249
- Paden, A. R., & Kodak, T. (2015). The effects of reinforcement magnitude on skill acquisition for children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48(4), 924–929. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.239
- Penrod, B., Wallace, M. F., & Dyer, E. J. (2008). Assessing potency of high- and low-preference reinforcers with respect to response rate and response patterns. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41(2), 177–188. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2008.41-177
- Piazza, C. C., Fisher, W. W., Hagopian, L. P., Bowman, L. G., & Toole, L. (1996). Using a choice assessment to predict reinforcer effectiveness. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1996.29-1
- Roane, H. S., Lerman, D. C., & Vorndran, C. M. (2001). Assessing reinforcers under progressive schedule requirements. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34(2), 145–166. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2001.34-145
- Roane, H. S. (2008). On the applied use of progressive-ratio schedules of reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41(2), 155–161. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2008.41-155
- Roscoe, E. M., Iwata, B. A., & Kahng, S. (1999). Relative versus absolute reinforcement effects: Implications for preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32(4), 479–493. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1999.32-479
- Saini, V., Retzlaff, B., Roane, H. S., & Piazza, C. C. (2021). Identifying and enhancing the effectiveness of positive reinforcement. In W. W. Fisher, C. C. Piazza, & H. S. Roane (Eds.), Handbook of applied behavior analysis ( 2nd ed., pp. 175–192). The Guilford Press.
- Taravella, C. C., Lerman, D. C., Contrucci, S. A., & Roane, H. S. (2000). Further evaluation of low-ranked items in stimulus-choice preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33(1), 105–108. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2000.33-105
- Vollmer, T. R., & Iwata, B. A. (1991). Establishing operations and reinforcement effects. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24(2), 279–291. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1991.24-279
