%0 Journal Article %1 RefWorks:6 %A Yu, C. T. %A Martin, Garry L. %D 2003 %J Journal on Developmental Disabilities %K caregivers; descriptions; responding; stimulus behavior tangibles; Pictorial pictures; choice disability Stimuli; Skills modalities; developmental verbal communication %N 1 %P 137-140 %T Tangibles, pictures, and verbal descriptions: Which should be used in choice presentations? %U Yu, C. T.: yu@stamant.mb.caMartin, Garry L.: gmartin@cc.umanitoba.ca; <img src=http://sfx2.exlibrisgroup.com:9003/umanitoba/link.gif border="0"> http://sfx2.exlibrisgroup.com:9003/umanitoba?sid=SP:PSYI&id=pmid:&id=&issn=1188-9136&isbn=&volume=10&issue=1&spage=137&pages=137-140&date=2003&title=Journal%20on%20Developmental%20Disabilities&atitle=Tangibles%2c%20pictures%2c%20and%20verbal%20descriptions%3a%20Which%20should%20be%20used%20in%20choice%20presentations%3f&aulast=Yu%2c%20C.%20T&pid=%3Cauthor%3EYu%2c%20C.%20T%3bMartin%2c%20Garry%20L%3C%2Fauthor%3E%3CAN%3E2004-13077-018%3C%2FAN%3E%3CDT%3EJournal%3bPeer%20Reviewed%20Journal%3bOriginal%20Journal%20Article%3bLiterature%20Review%3C%2FDT%3E %V 10 %X Little research has examined how stimulus modalities influence choice responding. Should choice alternatives be presented using tangibles, pictures, or verbal descriptions? How should caregivers decide which modality to use? We have completed several studies to examine how discrimination skills, as measured by the Assessment of Basic Learning Abilities test, interact with choice stimulus modalities to influence responding. Our results suggest that for persons with developmental disabilities with limited or no communication skills, the ability to make simple visual, visual matching to sample, and auditory-visual discriminations should be the prime determinant of stimulus modalities in choice presentation and preference assessment. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved) (journal abstract) %@ 1188-9136

@article{RefWorks:6, abstract = {Little research has examined how stimulus modalities influence choice responding. Should choice alternatives be presented using tangibles, pictures, or verbal descriptions? How should caregivers decide which modality to use? We have completed several studies to examine how discrimination skills, as measured by the Assessment of Basic Learning Abilities test, interact with choice stimulus modalities to influence responding. Our results suggest that for persons with developmental disabilities with limited or no communication skills, the ability to make simple visual, visual matching to sample, and auditory-visual discriminations should be the prime determinant of stimulus modalities in choice presentation and preference assessment. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved) (journal abstract)}, added-at = {2006-10-27T21:44:24.000+0200}, author = {Yu, C. T. and Martin, Garry L.}, biburl = {https://www.bibsonomy.org/bibtex/28a11d3156fe7ae49d49dd332d2e81cd1/quinn}, description = {ABLA}, interhash = {305793f2b43ddfa851403d5ef1d3f4fc}, intrahash = {8a11d3156fe7ae49d49dd332d2e81cd1}, isbn = {1188-9136}, journal = {Journal on Developmental Disabilities}, keywords = {caregivers; descriptions; responding; stimulus behavior tangibles; Pictorial pictures; choice disability Stimuli; Skills modalities; developmental verbal communication}, language = {English}, month = {Fal 2003}, note = {MT: Electronic; Print; FO: Print; PO: Human; MD: Literature-Review; CRN: Number of References: 13; Displayed: 13.; REF: Conyers, C. M., Doole, A., Vause, T., Harapiak, S., Yu, D. C. T., & Martin, G. L. (2002). Predicting the relative efficacy of three presentation methods for assessing preferences of persons with developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 49-58. DeLeon, I. G., & Iwata, B. A. (1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 519-533. Fisher, W. W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., & Amari, A. (1996). Integrating caregiver report with a systematic choice assessment to enhance reinforcer identification. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 101, 15-25. Fisher, W. W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., Hagopian, L. P., Owens, J. C., & Slevin, I. (1992). A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 491-498. Fisher, W. W., Thompson, R. H., Piazza, C. C., Crosland, K., & Gotjen, D. (1997). On the relative reinforcing effects of choice and differential consequence. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 423-438. Green, C. W., Gardner, S. M., & Reid, D. H. (1997). Increasing indices of happiness among people with profound multiple disabilities: A program replication and component analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 217-228. Green, C. W., Reid, D. H., Canipe, V. S., & Gardner, S. M. (1991). A comprehensive evaluation of reinforcer identification processes for persons with profound multiple handicaps. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 537-552. Green, C. W., Reid, D. H., White, L. K., Haiford, R. C., Brittain, D. P., & Gardner, S. M. (1988). Identifying reinforcers for persons with profound handicaps: Staff opinion versus systematic assessment of preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 31-43. Hughes, C., Hwang, B., Kim, J. H., Eisenman, L. T., & Killian, D. J. (1995). Quality of life in applied research: A review and analysis of empirical measures. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 99, 623-641. Lohrmann-O'Rouke, S., & Browder, D. M. (1998). Empirically based methods to assess preferences of individuals with severe disabilities. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 103, 146-161. doi:10.1352/0895-8017(1998)1032.0.CO;2 Martin, G., & Yu, C. T. (2000). Overview of research on the Assessment of Basic Learning Abilities test [Special Issue]. Journal on Developmental Disabilities, 7, 10-36. Pace, G. M., Ivancic, M. T., Edwards, G. L., Iwata, B. A., & Page, T. J. (1985). Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 249-255. Schwartzman, L., Yu, C. T., & Martin, G. L. (2003). Choice responding as a function of choice-presentation method and level of preference in persons with developmental disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Community & Rehabilitation, 1, 1-7.}, number = 1, pages = {137-140}, timestamp = {2006-10-27T21:44:24.000+0200}, title = {Tangibles, pictures, and verbal descriptions: Which should be used in choice presentations?}, url = {Yu, C. T.: yu@stamant.mb.caMartin, Garry L.: gmartin@cc.umanitoba.ca; <img src=http://sfx2.exlibrisgroup.com:9003/umanitoba/link.gif border="0"> http://sfx2.exlibrisgroup.com:9003/umanitoba?sid=SP:PSYI&id=pmid:&id=&issn=1188-9136&isbn=&volume=10&issue=1&spage=137&pages=137-140&date=2003&title=Journal%20on%20Developmental%20Disabilities&atitle=Tangibles%2c%20pictures%2c%20and%20verbal%20descriptions%3a%20Which%20should%20be%20used%20in%20choice%20presentations%3f&aulast=Yu%2c%20C.%20T&pid=%3Cauthor%3EYu%2c%20C.%20T%3bMartin%2c%20Garry%20L%3C%2Fauthor%3E%3CAN%3E2004-13077-018%3C%2FAN%3E%3CDT%3EJournal%3bPeer%20Reviewed%20Journal%3bOriginal%20Journal%20Article%3bLiterature%20Review%3C%2FDT%3E}, volume = 10, year = 2003 }