Group-Based Preference Assessment for Children and Adolescents in a Residential Setting: Examining Developmental,Clinical,Gender,and Ethnic Differences
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online November, 2009
Group-Based Preference Assessment for Children and Adolescents in a Residential Setting: Examining Developmental,Clinical,Gender,and Ethnic Differences
This study examines developmental, clinical, gender, and ethnic group differences in preference in residentially placed children and adolescents. In addition, this study considers whether residentially placed youth prefer stimuli currently being used as rewards as part of a campuswide token economy system and whether youth would identify preferred stimuli that are not currently offered. The article discusses a survey devised specifically for the purpose of this study. Stimuli currently offered as rewards are listed and rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Results indicate that the majority of stimuli available within the token economy system were rated as preferred. Also, significant developmental, clinical, gender, and ethnic group differences are found, indicating the benefit of considering group-level characteristics when designing and implementing a groupwide token economy system. The implications of the results and directions for future research are discussed.
Achenbach, T.M., & Rescorla, L.A. (2001). Manual for ASEBA school-age forms & profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families .
2.
Cautela, J.R. & Lynch, E. ( 1983). Reinforcement survey schedules: Scoring, administration, and completed research. Psychological Reports, 53, 447-465.
3.
Cohen, J. ( 1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
DeLeon, I.G., & Iwata, B.A. ( 1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcers preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 519-533.
6.
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.
7.
Fixsen, D.L., Blasé, K.A., Timbers, G.D., & Wolf, M.M. ( 2001). In search of program implementation: 792 replications of the Teaching Family Model. In G. A. Bernfeld , D. P. Farrington, & A. W. Leschied (Eds.), Offender rehabilitation in practice: Implementing and evaluating effective programs (pp. 149-166). New York: John Wiley.
8.
Galeazzi, A., Franceschina, E., Cautela, J., Holmes, G.R., & Sakano, Y. ( 1998). A comparison of Italian, Japanese, and American students’ responses to the adolescent reinforcement survey schedule. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54, 267-278.
Holmes, G.R., Galezzi, A., Franceschina, E., McNulty, G.F., Forand, A.Q., Stader, S.R., et al. (2004). A structural equation model for the school reinforcement survey schedule: Italian and American early adolescents. Journal of Behavioral Education, 13, 117-133.
11.
Holmes, G.R., Sakano, Y., Cautela, J., & Holmes, G.L. ( 1991). Comparison of factor-analyzed adolescent reinforcement survey schedule (ARSS) responses from Japanese andAmerican Adolescents. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 47, 749-755.
12.
Holmes, G.R., Sakano, Y., Doran, G.H., Doran, J.R., & Cautela, J. ( 1994). Japanese high school and college students responses to the adolescent reinforcement survey schedule. Psychological Reports, 75, 995-1006.
13.
Jones, R.N., Mandler-Provin, D., Latkowski, M.E., & McMahon, W.M. ( 1988). Development of a reinforcement survey for inpatient psychiatric children. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 9, 73-77.
14.
Kazdin, A.E. ( 1982). The token economy: A decade later. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15, 431-445.
15.
Kazdin, A.E. & Bootzin, R.R. ( 1972). The token economy: An evaluative review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 5, 343-372.
16.
Larzele, R.E., Daly, D., Davis, J.L., Chmelka, M.R., & Handwerk, M.L. (2004). Outcome evaluation of girls and boys town family home program. Education & Treatment of Children, 27, 130-149.
17.
Milan, M.A. ( 1987). Token economy programs in closed institutions. In E. K. Morris & C. J. Braukmann (Eds.), Behavioral approaches to crime and delinquency: A handbook of application, research, and concepts (pp. 195-222). New York: Plenum.
18.
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.
19.
Parker, J.G., Rubin, K.H., Price, J.M., & DeRosier, M.E. (1995). Peer relationships, child development, and adjustment: A developmental psychopathological perspective . In D. Cicchetti & D. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Risk, disorder, and adaptation (Vol. 2, pp. 96-161). New York: John Wiley.
20.
Pellegrini, A.D. ( 1992). Preference for outdoor play during early adolescence . Journal of Adolescence, 15, 241-254.
21.
Sulzer-Azaroff, B., & Mayer, G.R. ( 1991). Behavior analysis for lasting change. New York: Rinehart & Winston.
22.
Windsor, J., Piche, L.M., & Locke, P.A. ( 1994). Preference testing: A comparison of two presentation methods. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 15, 439-455.
