ArticleJournal of applied behavior analysis2012
Correspondence between single versus daily preference assessment outcomes and reinforcer efficacy under progressive-ratio schedules.
Article in Journal of applied behavior analysis, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating Artificial Intelligence on the Efficacy of Preference Assessments for Preservice Speech-Language Pathologists.Journal of developmental and physical disabilities · 2025Article
- Stimulus Preference Assessment Decision-Making System (SPADS): A Decision-Making Model for Practitioners.Behavior analysis in practice · 2021Review
- Children with Autism show Atypical Preference for Non-social Stimuli.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- A Comparison of Two Procedures for Assessing Preference in a Classroom Setting.Behavior analysis in practice · 2019Article
- Examining the reinforcing value of stimuli within social and non-social contexts in children with and without high-functioning autism.Autism : the international journal of research and practice · 2017Article
- An Analysis of Feedback from a Behavior Analytic Perspective.The Behavior analyst · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Research has suggested that a daily multiple-stimulus-without-replacement (MSWO) preference assessment may be more sensitive to changes in preference than other assessment formats, thereby resulting in greater correspondence with reinforcer efficacy over time (DeLeon et al., 2001). However, most prior studies have measured reinforcer efficacy using rate of responding under single-operant arrangements and dense schedules or under concurrent-operants arrangements. An alternative measure of reinforcer efficacy involves the evaluation of responding under progressive-ratio (PR) schedules. In the present study, 7 participants were given a single paired-stimulus (PS) preference assessment followed by daily MSWO preference assessments. After each daily MSWO, participants responded for each stimulus on a PR schedule. The correspondence between break points and preferences, as assessed by the 2 assessment formats, was examined. Results demonstrated that both preference assessments did equally well at predicting reinforcer efficacy, although the PS more consistently identified the most effective reinforcer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.