{"id":{"repo_id":"ku","oai_identifier":"oai:kuscholarworks.ku.edu:1808/26014"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/ku/oai:kuscholarworks.ku.edu:1808/26014","repository":{"repo_id":"ku","name":"University of Kansas","base_url":"https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/server/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Evaluation of Sequential Presentation without Extinction for the Treatment of Food Selectivity","abstract":"Sequential presentation (i.e., differential reinforcement of alternative behavior) is a widely used procedure to increase consumption of non-preferred foods in children with food selectivity (e.g., Allison et al., 2012; Anderson & McMillan, 2001; Kern & Marder, 1996; Najdowski, Wallace, Doney, & Ghezzi, 2003). Escape extinction is often a critical component of sequential presentation. However, there are challenges associated with its implementation such as extinction bursts and extinction-induced response variability (Ahearn, Kerwin, Eicher, Shantz, & Swearingin, 1996; Sevin, Gulotta, Sierp, Rosica, & Miller, 2002). These challenges may make sequential presentation difficult to implement under certain situations, specifically for caregivers (e.g., McConnachie & Carr, 1997). Therefore, it is important to evaluate the effects of procedures in the absence of escape extinction (Kodak & Piazza, 2008; Penrod, Wallace, Reagon, Betz, & Higbee, 2010). Thus, the purpose of the current study was to evaluate the effects of sequential presentation without escape extinction under various conditions. First, we compared the effects of three sequential presentation procedures using various stimuli (i.e., preferred food, preferred tangible, preferred attention). If those sequential presentation procedures were ineffective, we evaluated the effects of a sequential presentation procedure in which we combined the three preferred stimuli. If the sequential presentation procedure with combined stimuli was ineffective, then we evaluated the effects of a sequential presentation procedure in which the duration of access to the combined stimuli was increased. Results suggest the delivery of a single stimulus was effective for three of eight participants, the combination of stimuli was effective for three of six participants with whom we evaluated this procedure, and escape EXT was necessary for two participants.","abstract_html":"Sequential presentation (i.e., differential reinforcement of alternative behavior) is a widely used procedure to increase consumption of non-preferred foods in children with food selectivity (e.g., Allison et al., 2012; Anderson & McMillan, 2001; Kern & Marder, 1996; Najdowski, Wallace, Doney, & Ghezzi, 2003). Escape extinction is often a critical component of sequential presentation. However, there are challenges associated with its implementation such as extinction bursts and extinction-induced response variability (Ahearn, Kerwin, Eicher, Shantz, & Swearingin, 1996; Sevin, Gulotta, Sierp, Rosica, & Miller, 2002). These challenges may make sequential presentation difficult to implement under certain situations, specifically for caregivers (e.g., McConnachie & Carr, 1997). Therefore, it is important to evaluate the effects of procedures in the absence of escape extinction (Kodak & Piazza, 2008; Penrod, Wallace, Reagon, Betz, & Higbee, 2010). Thus, the purpose of the current study was to evaluate the effects of sequential presentation without escape extinction under various conditions. First, we compared the effects of three sequential presentation procedures using various stimuli (i.e., preferred food, preferred tangible, preferred attention). If those sequential presentation procedures were ineffective, we evaluated the effects of a sequential presentation procedure in which we combined the three preferred stimuli. If the sequential presentation procedure with combined stimuli was ineffective, then we evaluated the effects of a sequential presentation procedure in which the duration of access to the combined stimuli was increased. Results suggest the delivery of a single stimulus was effective for three of eight participants, the combination of stimuli was effective for three of six participants with whom we evaluated this procedure, and escape EXT was necessary for two participants.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Juanico, Jessica Foster"],"institution":"University of Kansas","degree_name":null,"degree_level":null,"degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":["Dozier, Claudia L"],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2017,"date_issued":"2017-08-31","date_published":"2017-08-31","updated_at":"2026-07-24T02:45:42Z","subjects":["Behavioral psychology","Behavioral sciences","children","escape extinction","food selectivity","parameters of reinforcement","sequential presentation"],"languages":["en"],"rights":["Copyright held by the author."],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["http://dissertations.umi.com/ku:15517"],"render_values":[{"text":"http://dissertations.umi.com/ku:15517","href":"http://dissertations.umi.com/ku:15517","code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/1808/26014","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.advisor","label":"Advisor","values":["Dozier, Claudia L"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Juanico, Jessica Foster"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2018-02-19T03:18:07Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2018-02-19T03:18:07Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2017-08-31"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["University of Kansas"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Dissertation"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Behavioral psychology","Behavioral sciences","children","escape extinction","food selectivity","parameters of reinforcement","sequential presentation"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language.iso","label":"Language (ISO)","values":["en"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["Copyright held by the author."]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["http://dissertations.umi.com/ku:15517"]},{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/1808/26014"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["Sequential presentation (i.e., differential reinforcement of alternative behavior) is a widely used procedure to increase consumption of non-preferred foods in children with food selectivity (e.g., Allison et al., 2012; Anderson & McMillan, 2001; Kern & Marder, 1996; Najdowski, Wallace, Doney, & Ghezzi, 2003). Escape extinction is often a critical component of sequential presentation. However, there are challenges associated with its implementation such as extinction bursts and extinction-induced response variability (Ahearn, Kerwin, Eicher, Shantz, & Swearingin, 1996; Sevin, Gulotta, Sierp, Rosica, & Miller, 2002). These challenges may make sequential presentation difficult to implement under certain situations, specifically for caregivers (e.g., McConnachie & Carr, 1997). Therefore, it is important to evaluate the effects of procedures in the absence of escape extinction (Kodak & Piazza, 2008; Penrod, Wallace, Reagon, Betz, & Higbee, 2010). Thus, the purpose of the current study was to evaluate the effects of sequential presentation without escape extinction under various conditions. First, we compared the effects of three sequential presentation procedures using various stimuli (i.e., preferred food, preferred tangible, preferred attention). If those sequential presentation procedures were ineffective, we evaluated the effects of a sequential presentation procedure in which we combined the three preferred stimuli. If the sequential presentation procedure with combined stimuli was ineffective, then we evaluated the effects of a sequential presentation procedure in which the duration of access to the combined stimuli was increased. Results suggest the delivery of a single stimulus was effective for three of eight participants, the combination of stimuli was effective for three of six participants with whom we evaluated this procedure, and escape EXT was necessary for two participants."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Evaluation of Sequential Presentation without Extinction for the Treatment of Food Selectivity"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.advisor":["Dozier, Claudia L"],"dc:creator":["Juanico, Jessica Foster"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2018-02-19T03:18:07Z"],"dc:date.available":["2018-02-19T03:18:07Z"],"dc:date.issued":["2017-08-31"],"dc:description.abstract":["Sequential presentation (i.e., differential reinforcement of alternative behavior) is a widely used procedure to increase consumption of non-preferred foods in children with food selectivity (e.g., Allison et al., 2012; Anderson & McMillan, 2001; Kern & Marder, 1996; Najdowski, Wallace, Doney, & Ghezzi, 2003). Escape extinction is often a critical component of sequential presentation. However, there are challenges associated with its implementation such as extinction bursts and extinction-induced response variability (Ahearn, Kerwin, Eicher, Shantz, & Swearingin, 1996; Sevin, Gulotta, Sierp, Rosica, & Miller, 2002). These challenges may make sequential presentation difficult to implement under certain situations, specifically for caregivers (e.g., McConnachie & Carr, 1997). Therefore, it is important to evaluate the effects of procedures in the absence of escape extinction (Kodak & Piazza, 2008; Penrod, Wallace, Reagon, Betz, & Higbee, 2010). Thus, the purpose of the current study was to evaluate the effects of sequential presentation without escape extinction under various conditions. First, we compared the effects of three sequential presentation procedures using various stimuli (i.e., preferred food, preferred tangible, preferred attention). If those sequential presentation procedures were ineffective, we evaluated the effects of a sequential presentation procedure in which we combined the three preferred stimuli. If the sequential presentation procedure with combined stimuli was ineffective, then we evaluated the effects of a sequential presentation procedure in which the duration of access to the combined stimuli was increased. Results suggest the delivery of a single stimulus was effective for three of eight participants, the combination of stimuli was effective for three of six participants with whom we evaluated this procedure, and escape EXT was necessary for two participants."],"dc:identifier.other":["http://dissertations.umi.com/ku:15517"],"dc:identifier.uri":["http://hdl.handle.net/1808/26014"],"dc:language.iso":["en"],"dc:publisher":["University of Kansas"],"dc:rights":["Copyright held by the author."],"dc:subject":["Behavioral psychology","Behavioral sciences","children","escape extinction","food selectivity","parameters of reinforcement","sequential presentation"],"dc:title":["Evaluation of Sequential Presentation without Extinction for the Treatment of Food Selectivity"],"dc:type":["Dissertation"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T02:45:42Z"}