• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >Assessing stimulus preferences and testing stimuli as reinforcers for children and adults with profound mental retardation and multiple disabilities.
【24h】

Assessing stimulus preferences and testing stimuli as reinforcers for children and adults with profound mental retardation and multiple disabilities.

机译：评估刺激偏好并测试刺激，以作为患有严重智力障碍和多种残疾的儿童和成人的增强剂。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

It is essential in the development of a successful training program for persons with profound mental retardation and multiple disabilities (PMD) to use effective reinforcers. During several experiments, a single-stimulus (SS) preference assessment has been used to identify preferred stimuli that might be reinforcers with individuals with PMD. With this method, the activities or stimuli that are being assessed are presented individually to a client. The client has a limited period of time in which to respond, and an appropriate response is followed by the opportunity to interact with the stimulus for a short time. Each stimulus is typically presented a certain number of times (e.g., 10 trials), and a high preference (HP) item is defined as a stimulus that the client responded to on 80% or more of the trials. However, there have been some discrepancies in the literature about how the SS procedure has been conducted. Some researchers have defined the preference response as a physical approach toward a presented stimulus, while others have accepted either an approach response or happiness indicators. As well, some researchers allow a participant 5 s after the stimulus has been presented to indicate a preference, while others have allowed 30 s. Each of these variations in the SS procedure may lead to different results in identifying preferred stimuli and reinforcers for these individuals. My research investigated these methodological variations to determine which was the most effective method to identify highly preferred non-edible stimuli and reinforcers for individuals with PMD. Also, I compared the SS preference assessment method for identifying preferred stimuli and reinforcers to the opinions of experienced teachers or caregivers who were familiar with each of the participants.; In Experiment 1, I studied eight participants with PMD, and investigated which preference assessment response (approach behaviors versus approach and/or happiness behaviors) was the most sensitive in identifying preferred stimuli and reinforcers. The design was an ABAB design. The A phases were an SS preference assessment in which the preference response was defined as an approach behavior, in order to determine which of six stimuli was the most highly preferred. The HP stimulus was then tested for its reinforcing value in maintaining the pressing of a micro-switch. The B phases were the same as the A phases, except that the preference response was defined as approach and/or happiness behaviors. For some of the participants, the phases were reversed (BABA). The two response definitions were approximately equal in identifying HP stimuli and reinforcers.; In Experiment 2 I studied 8 participants with PMD (3 of whom were new, and 5 of whom had previously participated in Experiment 1) and investigated which response interval (5 s versus 30 s) was the most effective in identifying preferred stimuli and reinforcers. The approach only preference response from Experiment 1 was used. Like Experiment 1, the design was an ABAB design, in which half of the participants received the conditions in the reverse order (BABA). During the A phases, the SS preference assessment allowed each participant 5 s to emit the preference response. The B phases were the same as the A phases, except that the participant was allowed 30 s to emit the preference response. The HP stimuli were then tested for their reinforcing value. The 30 s response interval was superior to the 5 s interval in identifying reinforcers. In both experiments, there was no correlation between caregivers' rankings of the stimuli and whether they were reinforcers for the participants. Identifying the most effective preference assessment method is important, because it allows us to identify reinforcers for teaching programs, and to increase the quality of life for individuals with PMD.
机译：在制定针对严重智力障碍和多残障人士（PMD）的成功培训计划时，必须使用有效的增强剂。在几个实验中，单刺激（SS）偏好评估已被用来识别首选刺激，这些刺激可能是PMD患者的增强剂。通过这种方法，被评估的活动或刺激被单独呈现给客户。客户在有限的时间内可以做出响应，然后在适当的响应之后有机会在短时间内与刺激互动。每个刺激物通常会出现一定的次数（例如10次试验），而高偏好（HP）项目则是指客户对80％或更多试验做出反应的刺激物。但是，文献中关于如何进行SS程序存在一些差异。一些研究人员将偏好反应定义为对所呈现的刺激的物理方法，而另一些研究人员则接受了方法反应或幸福指标。同样，一些研究人员在刺激出现后5秒钟允许参与者表明自己的偏好，而另一些研究人员则允许30秒钟。 SS程序中的这些变化中的每一个都可能导致在确定这些个体的首选刺激和增强剂方面产生不同的结果。我的研究调查了这些方法上的差异，以确定哪种方法最有效地为PMD个体确定了首选的非食用刺激和强化剂。另外，我还比较了SS偏好评估方法（用于识别首选刺激和强化因素）与熟悉每个参与者的经验丰富的老师或看护者的意见。在实验1中，我研究了8名PMD参与者，并调查了哪种偏好评估响应（接近行为与进近行为和/或幸福行为）在识别首选刺激和强化因素时最敏感。该设计是ABAB设计。 A阶段是SS偏好评估，其中将偏好响应定义为一种接近行为，以便确定六个刺激中的哪一个是最受推荐的。然后测试HP刺激物在维持微动开关按压方面的增强价值。 B阶段与A阶段相同，只是将偏好响应定义为接近和/或幸福行为。对于某些参与者，阶段是相反的（BABA）。在确定HP刺激物和增强剂时，这两种反应的定义大致相等。在实验2中，我研究了8名PMD参与者（其中3名是新参与者，其中5名曾参加过实验1），并研究了哪个响应间隔（5 s对30 s）最有效地识别了首选刺激和强化剂。使用来自实验1的仅方法偏好响应。与实验1一样，该设计也是ABAB设计，其中一半的参与者以相反的顺序（BABA）接收条件。在A阶段，SS偏好评估允许每个参与者5 s发出偏好响应。 B阶段与A阶段相同，除了参与者被允许30秒发出偏好响应。然后测试HP刺激的增强价值。 30 s的响应间隔优于5 s的间隔，可以识别增强剂。在两个实验中，看护者的刺激等级与他们是否是参与者的加强剂之间均无关联。确定最有效的偏好评估方法很重要，因为它使我们能够确定教学计划的辅助手段，并提高PMD患者的生活质量。

著录项

  • 作者

    Spevack, Sara M.;

  • 作者单位

    University of Manitoba (Canada).;

  • 授予单位 University of Manitoba (Canada).;
  • 学科 Health Sciences Mental Health.; Psychology Behavioral.; Education Special.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2007
  • 页码 128 p.
  • 总页数 128
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 医学心理学、病理心理学;心理学;特殊教育;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号