{"id":{"repo_id":"unt","oai_identifier":"info:ark/67531/metadc4975"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/unt/info:ark/67531/metadc4975","repository":{"repo_id":"unt","name":"University of North Texas","base_url":"https://digital.library.unt.edu/oai/"},"display":{"title":"A Comparison of Brief Versus Extended Paired-Choice Preference Assessment Outcomes.","abstract":"Few studies have systematically evaluated whether preferences can reliably be identified using brief procedures. Typically, studies have used brief procedures to select potential reinforcers for use in intervention procedures. A total of 17 food and leisure paired-choice preference assessments were administered to 10 subjects in order to evaluate the extent to which the results of a brief (i.e., single-session) assessment correspond with those from more extended procedures (i.e., 5 sessions). Eleven out of the 17 brief and extended assessments identified the same stimulus as the most preferred (highest rank). Outcomes suggest that a brief assessment can be useful when a single, potent reinforcing stimulus is desired, and an extended assessment should be conducted when a larger number of preferred stimuli is desired.","abstract_html":"Few studies have systematically evaluated whether preferences can reliably be identified using brief procedures. Typically, studies have used brief procedures to select potential reinforcers for use in intervention procedures. A total of 17 food and leisure paired-choice preference assessments were administered to 10 subjects in order to evaluate the extent to which the results of a brief (i.e., single-session) assessment correspond with those from more extended procedures (i.e., 5 sessions). Eleven out of the 17 brief and extended assessments identified the same stimulus as the most preferred (highest rank). Outcomes suggest that a brief assessment can be useful when a single, potent reinforcing stimulus is desired, and an extended assessment should be conducted when a larger number of preferred stimuli is desired.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Cason, Caroline Adelaide"],"institution":"University of North Texas","degree_name":null,"degree_level":null,"degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Smith, Richard","Hyten, Cloyd","Ala'i-Rosales, Shahla"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2005,"date_issued":"2005-12","date_published":"2005-12","updated_at":"2026-07-24T05:35:09Z","subjects":["Reinforcement (Psychology)","Developmentally disabled.","reinforcers","paired-choice","preference assessment","brief assessment","extended assessment"],"languages":["English"],"rights":["Public","Copyright","Cason, Caroline Adelaide","Copyright is held by the author, unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved."],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["oclc: 68717479","https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc4975/","ark: ark:/67531/metadc4975"],"render_values":[{"text":"oclc: 68717479","href":null,"code":true},{"text":"https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc4975/","href":"https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc4975/","code":true},{"text":"ark: ark:/67531/metadc4975","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://doi.org/10.12794/metadc4975","outbound_label":"DOI","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Smith, Richard","Hyten, Cloyd","Ala'i-Rosales, Shahla"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Cason, Caroline Adelaide"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2005-12"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["University of North Texas"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Thesis or Dissertation"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Reinforcement (Psychology)","Developmentally disabled.","reinforcers","paired-choice","preference assessment","brief assessment","extended assessment"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["English"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["Public","Copyright","Cason, Caroline Adelaide","Copyright is held by the author, unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved."]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["oclc: 68717479","doi: 10.12794/metadc4975","https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc4975/","ark: ark:/67531/metadc4975"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["Few studies have systematically evaluated whether preferences can reliably be identified using brief procedures. Typically, studies have used brief procedures to select potential reinforcers for use in intervention procedures. A total of 17 food and leisure paired-choice preference assessments were administered to 10 subjects in order to evaluate the extent to which the results of a brief (i.e., single-session) assessment correspond with those from more extended procedures (i.e., 5 sessions). Eleven out of the 17 brief and extended assessments identified the same stimulus as the most preferred (highest rank). Outcomes suggest that a brief assessment can be useful when a single, potent reinforcing stimulus is desired, and an extended assessment should be conducted when a larger number of preferred stimuli is desired."]},{"key":"dc:format","label":"Dc Format","values":["Text"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["A Comparison of Brief Versus Extended Paired-Choice Preference Assessment Outcomes."]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Smith, Richard","Hyten, Cloyd","Ala'i-Rosales, Shahla"],"dc:creator":["Cason, Caroline Adelaide"],"dc:date":["2005-12"],"dc:description":["Few studies have systematically evaluated whether preferences can reliably be identified using brief procedures. Typically, studies have used brief procedures to select potential reinforcers for use in intervention procedures. A total of 17 food and leisure paired-choice preference assessments were administered to 10 subjects in order to evaluate the extent to which the results of a brief (i.e., single-session) assessment correspond with those from more extended procedures (i.e., 5 sessions). Eleven out of the 17 brief and extended assessments identified the same stimulus as the most preferred (highest rank). Outcomes suggest that a brief assessment can be useful when a single, potent reinforcing stimulus is desired, and an extended assessment should be conducted when a larger number of preferred stimuli is desired."],"dc:format":["Text"],"dc:identifier":["oclc: 68717479","doi: 10.12794/metadc4975","https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc4975/","ark: ark:/67531/metadc4975"],"dc:language":["English"],"dc:publisher":["University of North Texas"],"dc:rights":["Public","Copyright","Cason, Caroline Adelaide","Copyright is held by the author, unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved."],"dc:subject":["Reinforcement (Psychology)","Developmentally disabled.","reinforcers","paired-choice","preference assessment","brief assessment","extended assessment"],"dc:title":["A Comparison of Brief Versus Extended Paired-Choice Preference Assessment Outcomes."],"dc:type":["Thesis or Dissertation"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T05:35:09Z"}