A comparison between traditional economical and demand curve analyses of relative reinforcer efficacy in the validation of preference assessment predictions.
OBJECTIVE
This single-case study examined the degree to which three formal preference assessments (i.e. paired-stimulus, multiple-stimulus without replacement and a free-operant procedure) successfully identified reinforcers from six edibles in a subsequent reinforcement assessment.


METHODS
Economical analyses were conducted on the entire hierarchy of low-, moderate- and high-preferred edibles using both traditional (i.e. progressive-ratio breakpoint) and demand curve (P(max)) accounts of reinforcer efficacy with the data obtained from three reinforcement assessment sessions for each edible.


RESULTS
Across all three preference assessment types, accuracy in the identification of the top three reinforcers was 67%. The correlation between the traditional and demand curve metrics was highly significant, replicating previous research on the substitutability of these analyses.


CONCLUSIONS
Moderate-preferred stimuli may serve as efficacious reinforcers in subsequent reinforcer assessments. Additionally, demand curve analyses can contribute to the assessment of reinforcer efficacy and subsequently the validation of preference assessments.
Reed
Derek D
DD
May Institute, Randolph, MA, USA. dreed@melmarkne.org
Luiselli
James K
JK
Magnuson
Jennifer D
JD
Fillers
Stefanie
S
Vieira
Shawn
S
Rue
Hanna C
HC
D001321:Autistic Disorder / Q000523:psychology*; D002755:Choice Behavior; D003657:Decision Making; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D009483:Neuropsychological Tests; D010775:Photic Stimulation / Q000379:methods; D011597:Psychomotor Performance; D012054:Reinforcement, Psychology; D054928:Validation Studies as Topic; D055815:Young Adult