Comparison of the Predictive Validity and Consistency among Preference Assessment Procedures: A Review of the Literature

Autor/inn/en	Kang, Soyeon; O'Reilly, Mark; Lancioni, Giulio; Falcomata, Terry S.; Sigafoos, Jeff; Xu, Ziwei
Titel	Comparison of the Predictive Validity and Consistency among Preference Assessment Procedures: A Review of the Literature
Quelle	In: Research in Developmental Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 34 (2013) 4, S.1125-1133 (9 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0891-4222
DOI	10.1016/j.ridd.2012.12.021
Schlagwörter	Developmental Disabilities; Stimuli; Predictive Validity; Journal Articles; Research Methodology; Comparative Analysis; Prediction; Literature Reviews + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Entwicklungsstörung; Anreizsystem; Journal article; Zeitschriftenaufsatz; Research method; Forschungsmethode; Vorhersage
Abstract	We reviewed 14 experimental studies comparing different preference assessments for individuals with developmental disabilities that were published in peer-reviewed journals between 1985 and 2012. Studies were summarized based on the following six variables: (a) the number of participants, (b) the type of disability, (c) the number and type of stimuli, (d) the average duration of administration, (e) compared procedures, and (f) results. Studies were also classified in terms of the predictive validity and consistency of the preference assessment results. The results suggest the preference assessment procedures that may produce more accurate predictions for the reinforcing effects of identified stimuli and consistent preference results. The findings are discussed in relation to the previous literature. Evidence based modifications of the most efficient preference assessment are also discussed. (Contains 1 table.) (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Elsevier. 3251 Riverport Lane, Maryland Heights, MO 63043. Tel: 800-325-4177; Tel: 314-447-8000; Fax: 314-447-8033; e-mail: JournalCustomerService-usa@elsevier.com; Web site: http://www.elsevier.com
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2017/4/10