A Comparison of Two Procedures for Assessing Preference in a Classroom Setting
Tóm tắt
The purpose of this study was to compare a method of assessing preference within a large group format to individual preference assessments. Individual preference assessments were conducted by presenting an array of four edible stimuli to a participant and allowing the participant to select a preferred stimulus, with stimuli removed from the array based on selection criteria. Group preference assessments were conducted in a classroom of 19 students, with all students responding simultaneously to a prompt to identify a preferred stimulus using Plickers—unique Quick Response code cards that are read by an accompanying smartphone app. During the group procedure, stimuli in the array were restricted on the individual participant level. Results indicated that the group procedure was a valid and rapid method of assessing preference within a group of individuals. Although additional research is required, practitioners and researchers may consider use of Plickers as a promising means of evaluating preference within a group setting.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Barrish, H. H., Saunders, M., & Wolf, M. M. (1969). Good behavior game: effects of individual contingencies for group consequences on disruptive behavior in a classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 119–124.
Bradshaw, C. P., Reinke, W. M., Brown, L. D., Beavans, K. B., & Leaf, P. J. (2008). Implementation of School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) in elementary schools: observations from a randomized trial. Education and Treatment of Children, 31, 1–26.
Call, N. A., Trosclair-Lasserre, N. M., Findley, A. J., Reavis, A. R., & Shillingsburg, M. A. (2012). Correspondence between single versus daily preference assessment outcomes and reinforcer efficacy under progressive-ratio schedules. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45, 763–777.
Ciccone, F. J., Graff, R. B., & Ahearn, W. H. (2007). Long-term stability of edible preferences in individuals with developmental disabilities. Behavioral Interventions, 22, 223–228.
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice.
Dart, E. H., Radley, K. C., Battaglia, A. A., Dadakhodjaeva, K., Bates, K. E., & Wright, S. J. (2016). The classroom password: a class-wide intervention to increase academic engagement. Psychology in the Schools, 53, 416–431.
DeLeon, I. G., & Iwata, B. A. (1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 519–532.
Filcheck, H. A., McNeil, C. B., Greco, L. A., & Bernard, R. S. (2004). Using a whole-class token economy and coaching of teacher skills in a preschool classroom to manage disruptive behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 351–361.
Gresham, F. M., & Gresham, G. N. (1982). Interdependent, dependent, and independent group contingencies for controlling disruptive behavior. The Journal of Special Education, 16, 101–110.
Hawkins, R. O., Haydon, T., Denune, H., Larkin, W., & Fite, N. (2015). Improving the transition behavior of high school students with emotional behavioral disorders using a randomized interdependent group contingency. School Psychology Review, 44, 208–223.
Heal, N. A., & Hanley, G. P. (2007). Evaluating preschool children’s preference for motivational systems during instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Anlaysis, 40, 249–261.
Hirsch, S. E., Healy, S., Judge, J. P., & Lloyd, J. W. (2016). Effects of an interdependent group contingency on engagement in physical education. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 49, 975–979.
Kehle, T. J., Bray, M. A., Theodore, L. A., Jenson, W. R., & Clark, E. (2000). A multi-component intervention designed to reduce disruptive classroom behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 475–481.
Kodak, T., Fisher, W. W., Paden, A., & Dickes, N. (2013). Evaluation of the utility of a discrete-trial functional analysis in early intervention classrooms. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 301–306.
Krentz, H., Miltenberger, R., & Valbuena, D. (2016). Using token reinforcement to increase walking for adults with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 49, 745–750.
Lannie, A. L., & McCurdy, B. L. (2007). Preventing disruptive behavior in the urban classroom: effects of the Good Behavior Game on student and teacher behavior. Education and Treatment of Children, 30, 85–98.
Layer, S. A., Hanley, G. P., Heal, N. A., & Tiger, J. H. (2008). Determining individual preschoolers’ preferences in a group arrangement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41, 25–37.
Maggin, D. M., Johnson, A. H., Chafouleas, S. M., Ruberto, L. M., & Berggren, M. (2012). A systematic evidence review of school-based group contingency interventions for students with challenging behavior. Journal of School Psychology, 50(5), 625–654.
Mason, S. A., McGee, G. G., Farmer-Dougan, V., & Risley, T. R. (1989). A practical strategy for ongoing reinforcer assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22(2), 171–179.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2016). Adjustable spinner. Retrieved from: https://www.nctm.org/Classroom-Resources/Interactives/Adjustable-Spinner/.
Piazza, C. C., Roane, H. S., & Karsten, A. (2011). Identifying and enhancing the effectiveness of positive reinforcement. In W. W. Fisher, C. C. Piazza, & H. S. Roane (Eds.), Handbook of applied behavior analysis (pp. 151–164). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Roane, H. S., Vollmer, T. R., Ringdahl, J. E., & Marcus, B. A. (1998). Evaluation of a brief stimulus preference assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 605–620.
Verriden, A. L., & Roscoe, E. M. (2016). A comparison of preference-assessment methods. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 49, 265–285.
Wehman, P. (1976). Selection of play materials for the severely handicapped: a continuing dilemma. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 11, 46–50.
Zhou, L., Iwata, B. A., Goff, G. A., & Shore, B. A. (2001). Longitudinal analysis of leisure-item preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 179–184.