社交互动对自闭症儿童休闲项目偏好和强化物功效的影响。

IF 2.9 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Marissa E Kamlowsky, Claudia L Dozier, Stacha C Leslie, Ky C Kanaman, Sara C Diaz de Villegas
{"title":"社交互动对自闭症儿童休闲项目偏好和强化物功效的影响。","authors":"Marissa E Kamlowsky, Claudia L Dozier, Stacha C Leslie, Ky C Kanaman, Sara C Diaz de Villegas","doi":"10.1002/jaba.2919","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We replicated and extended Kanaman et al. (2022) by comparing outcomes of solitary (leisure items only), social (leisure items with social interaction), and combined (leisure items alone and leisure items with social interaction) stimulus preference assessments to determine the extent to which the inclusion of social interaction influenced the outcomes of preference assessments for five children with autism. We then conducted reinforcer assessments to determine the reinforcing efficacy of high- and low-preferred leisure items when presented with and without social interaction. The results showed that both high- and low-preferred items functioned as reinforcers to varying degrees for all participants and the inclusion of social interaction increased the reinforcing efficacy of some items for all participants. Additionally, the results showed that combined preference assessments predicted reinforcer assessment outcomes for two of five participants but produced false-negative outcomes for three participants. Clinical implications and directions for future research are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":14983,"journal":{"name":"Journal of applied behavior analysis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effects of social interaction on leisure item preference and reinforcer efficacy for children with autism.\",\"authors\":\"Marissa E Kamlowsky, Claudia L Dozier, Stacha C Leslie, Ky C Kanaman, Sara C Diaz de Villegas\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jaba.2919\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>We replicated and extended Kanaman et al. (2022) by comparing outcomes of solitary (leisure items only), social (leisure items with social interaction), and combined (leisure items alone and leisure items with social interaction) stimulus preference assessments to determine the extent to which the inclusion of social interaction influenced the outcomes of preference assessments for five children with autism. We then conducted reinforcer assessments to determine the reinforcing efficacy of high- and low-preferred leisure items when presented with and without social interaction. The results showed that both high- and low-preferred items functioned as reinforcers to varying degrees for all participants and the inclusion of social interaction increased the reinforcing efficacy of some items for all participants. Additionally, the results showed that combined preference assessments predicted reinforcer assessment outcomes for two of five participants but produced false-negative outcomes for three participants. Clinical implications and directions for future research are discussed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14983,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of applied behavior analysis\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of applied behavior analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.2919\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of applied behavior analysis","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.2919","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我们复制并扩展了 Kanaman 等人(2022 年)的研究,比较了单独(仅休闲项目)、社交(有社交互动的休闲项目)和组合(单独休闲项目和有社交互动的休闲项目)刺激偏好评估的结果,以确定社交互动对五名自闭症儿童偏好评估结果的影响程度。然后,我们进行了强化物评估,以确定在有社交互动和没有社交互动的情况下,高偏好和低偏好休闲项目的强化效果。结果显示,对于所有参与者来说,高偏好和低偏好项目都在不同程度上起到了强化作用,而对于所有参与者来说,加入社交互动会提高某些项目的强化效果。此外,研究结果表明,综合偏好评估可以预测五名参与者中两名的强化物评估结果,但三名参与者的评估结果为假阴性。本文讨论了临床意义和未来研究方向。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effects of social interaction on leisure item preference and reinforcer efficacy for children with autism.

We replicated and extended Kanaman et al. (2022) by comparing outcomes of solitary (leisure items only), social (leisure items with social interaction), and combined (leisure items alone and leisure items with social interaction) stimulus preference assessments to determine the extent to which the inclusion of social interaction influenced the outcomes of preference assessments for five children with autism. We then conducted reinforcer assessments to determine the reinforcing efficacy of high- and low-preferred leisure items when presented with and without social interaction. The results showed that both high- and low-preferred items functioned as reinforcers to varying degrees for all participants and the inclusion of social interaction increased the reinforcing efficacy of some items for all participants. Additionally, the results showed that combined preference assessments predicted reinforcer assessment outcomes for two of five participants but produced false-negative outcomes for three participants. Clinical implications and directions for future research are discussed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of applied behavior analysis
Journal of applied behavior analysis PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
20.70%
发文量
61
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信