Advertisement

Using a Tablet Device to Examine Effects of Varied Reinforcement and Preference

  • Audrey N. HoffmannEmail author
  • Bistra K. Bogoev
  • Chase H. Callard
  • Tyra P. Sellers
Original Paper
  • 19 Downloads

Abstract

The present study examined effects of providing varied reinforcement versus constant reinforcement using an iPad and applications (apps). Participants included three typically developing children in a school setting. We conducted a preference assessment to identify highly preferred and moderately preferred apps. We then conducted a concurrent chains assessment to examine responding for varied moderately preferred content or constant highly preferred content. Although participants demonstrated different response patterns, all participants responded to gain access to varied moderately preferred reinforcement more than constant highly preferred reinforcement although preference for content alone would not have predicted this outcome. This research has implications for using high-tech devices (i.e., iPads) as reinforcers in educational settings.

Keywords

Constant reinforcement iPad Technology Varied reinforcement 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Stephanie Mattson and Jason Lee for their valuable contributions to conducting this research.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Bowman, L. G., Piazza, C. C., Fisher, W. W., Hagopian, L. P., & Kogan, J. S. (1997). Assessment of preference for varied versus constant reinforcers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 451–458.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1997.30-451.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Broster, B. S., & Rankin, C. H. (1994). Effects of changing interstimulus interval during habituation in Caenorhabditis elegans. Behavioral Neuroscience, 108, 1019–1029.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Burke, R. V., Andersen, M. N., Bowen, S. L., Howard, M. R., & Allen, K. D. (2010). Evaluation of two instruction methods to increase employment options for young adults with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31, 1223–1233.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2010.07.023.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Crawford, S., & Fitzpatrick, P. (2015). The use of mobile digital technology and iPod touches in physical education. In Y. Zhang (Ed.), Handbook of mobile teaching and learning. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1996.29-519.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Ditzler, C., Hong, E., & Strudler, N. (2016). How tablets are utilized in the classroom. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 48, 181–193.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2016.1172444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Egel, A. L. (1980). The effects of constant versus varied reinforcer presentation on responding by autistic children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 30, 455–463.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-0965(80)90050-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Egel, A. L. (1981). Reinforcer variation: Implications for motivating developmentally disabled children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 345–350.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1981.14-345.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Geer, R., White, B. M., Zeegers, Y. P., Au, W., & Barnes, A. (2017). Emerging pedagogies for the use of iPads in schools. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48, 490–498.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hoffmann, A. N., Samaha, A. L., Bloom, S. E., & Boyle, M. A. (2017). Preference and reinforcer efficacy of high- and low-tech items: A comparison of item type and duration of access. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50, 222–237.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.383.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Kagohara, D. M., van der Meer, L., Achmadi, D., Green, V. A., O’Reilly, M., Lancioni, G. E., et al. (2012). Teaching picture naming to two adolescents with autism spectrum disorders using systematic instruction and speech-generating devices. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 6, 1224–1233.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2012.04.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kagohara, D. M., van der Meer, L., Achmadi, D., Green, V. A., O’Reilly, M., Mulloy, A., et al. (2010). Behavioral intervention promotes successful use of an iPod-based communication device by an adolescent with autism. Clinical Case Studies, 9, 328–338.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1534650110379633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Keyl-Austin, A. A., Samaha, A. L., Bloom, S. E., & Boyle, M. A. (2012). Effects of preference and reinforcer variation on within-session patterns of responding. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45, 637–641.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2012.45-637.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Knight, V., McKissick, B. R., & Saunders, A. (2013). A review of technology-based interventions to teach academic skills to students with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43, 2628–2648.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Koehler, L. J., Iwata, B. A., Roscoe, E. M., Rolider, N. U., & O’Steen, L. E. (2005). Effects of stimulus variation on the reinforcing capability of nonpreferred stimuli. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38, 469–484.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2005.102-04.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Melville, C. L., Rue, H. C., Rybiski, L. R., & Weatherly, J. N. (1997). Altering reinforcer variety or intensity changes the within-session decrease in responding. Learning and Motivation, 28, 609–621.  https://doi.org/10.1006/lmot.1997.0984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Milo, J. S., Mace, F. C., & Nevin, J. A. (2010). The effects of constant versus varied reinforcers on preference and resistance to change. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 93, 385–394.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.2010.93-385.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Murphy, E. S., McSweeney, F. K., Smith, R. G., & McComas, J. J. (2003). Dynamic changes in reinforcer effectiveness: Theoretical, methodological, and practical implications for applied research. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 421–438.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2003.36-421.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Najdowski, A. C., Wallace, M. D., Penrod, B., & Cleveland, J. (2005). Using stimulus variation to increase reinforcer efficacy of low preference stimuli. Behavioral Interventions, 20, 313–328.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Neely, L., Rispoli, M., Camargo, S., Davis, H., & Boles, M. (2013). The effect of instructional use of an iPad® on challenging behavior and academic engagement for two students with autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 7, 509–516.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2012.12.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pew Internet, & American Life Project. (2018). Mobile fact sheet. Retrieved from February 8, 2018, from http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/mobile/.
  22. Steinman, W. M. (1968a). Response rate and varied reinforcement: Reinforcers of similar strengths. Psychonomic Science, 10, 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Steinman, W. M. (1968b). Response rate and varied reinforcement: Reinforcers of different strengths. Psychonomic Science, 10, 36.Google Scholar
  24. Tiger, J. H., Hanley, G. P., & Hernandez, E. (2006). An evaluation of the value of choice with preschool children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39, 1–16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Wine, B., & Wilder, D. A. (2009). The effects of varied versus constant high-, medium-, and low-preference stimuli on performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 321–326.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EducationNorthern Vermont University-JohnsonJohnsonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Special Education and RehabilitationUtah State UniversityLoganUSA
  3. 3.Behavior Analyst Certification BoardLittletonUSA

Personalised recommendations