Filetype PDF | Posted on 15 Sep 2022 | 3 years ago
Authentication
digital resources
158x Filetype PDF File size 0.10 MB Source: web.mit.edu
Behavior Modification
http://bmo.sagepub.com
Development and Psychometric Evaluation of an Instrument to
Assess Reinforcer Preferences: The Preferred Items and
Experiences Questionnaire
Edward P. Sarafino and James A. Graham
Behav Modif 2006; 30; 835
DOI: 10.1177/0145445506291393
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://bmo.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/30/6/835
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Behavior Modification can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://bmo.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://bmo.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Downloaded from http://bmo.sagepub.com by on November 8, 2007
© 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
Development and Psychometric
Evaluation of an Instrument to Assess
Reinforcer Preferences
The Preferred Items and Experiences
Questionnaire
EDWARD P. SARAFINO
JAMES A. GRAHAM
The College of New Jersey
The Preferred Items and Experiences Questionnaire (PIEQ) is a new instrument to assess rein-
forcer preferences in adolescents and adults. Research was conducted with college and high
school students to develop the PIEQ, to examine its reliability with test-retest and internal con-
sistency methods, and to test its validity. This research provides support for the PIEQ’s relia-
bility and validity.
Keywords: assessment; reinforcer; preferences
The application of effective reinforcers is a cornerstone of behav-
ior modification program design and implementation. Determining
which consequences will reinforce a person’s behavior can be
accomplished in several ways (Sarafino, 2001). For example, one
way uses structured tests, presenting an array of stimuli and observ-
ing which ones the person chooses. Research has shown that rein-
forcers identified with structured tests of individuals’preferences are
AUTHORS’NOTE:We are indebted to Edward Barry, principal of Ewing High School, and
the school’s teachers for designating and preparing the classes for recruitment and for encour-
aging students to participate. We also thank W. Daniel Phillips for statistical advice.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Edward P. Sarafino,
Department of Psychology, The College of New Jersey, Ewing, NJ 08628; e-mail:
sarafino@tcnj.edu.
BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION,Vol. 30 No. 6, November 2006 835-847
DOI: 10.1177/0145445506291393
© 2006 Sage Publications
835
Downloaded from http://bmo.sagepub.com by on November 8, 2007
© 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
836 BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION / November 2006
more effective in changing the behavior of those people than are
reinforcers identified solely on the basis of staff or caregiver opinion
(Green, Reid, Canipe, & Gardner, 1991). Another method for assess-
ing reinforcer preferences has the individual rate his or her liking of
potential reinforcers in a questionnaire.
The Reinforcement Survey Schedule (RSS) is a very detailed and
extensive questionnaire for assessing possible reinforcers for adults
(Cautela & Kastenbaum, 1967). It lists 148 potential reinforcers and
has respondents rate each for the “pleasure it gives,” using a 5-point
scale from not at all to very much, and it takes 20 to 30 minutes to
complete. Research has found evidence of the instrument’s validity
(Cautela & Lynch, 1983) and has shown that it has good reliability,
with median test-retest correlations ranging from .67 to .73 for the full
scale (Kleinknecht, McCormick, & Thorndike, 1973). Different ver-
sions of the RSS have been developed for specific populations, such
as adolescents and individuals with certain psychiatric disorders, and
the scale has been useful in research and in treating clients in private
practice and institutions (Cautela & Lynch, 1983). But the various ver-
sions of the RSS have limitations. For example, many of the rein-
forcers they list could be difficult or unethical to control and
administer, such as “nude men” and “being right in an argument.”
Other reinforcers are specified in extreme detail, as in the 17 listed
types of reading material (e.g., “mystery,” “travel,” and “science”),
making the survey long to fill out.
Because of these limitations, we have developed a new survey to
assess reinforcer preferences—a 59-item instrument, called the
Preferred Items and Experiences Questionnaire (PIEQ), that is intended
for use with adolescents and adults. An important advantage of the
PIEQ is that almost all of the reinforcers it lists can be controlled and
administered by professionals, such as therapists and teachers, and by
family members and clients (in self-management). Two studies were
conducted to develop the PIEQ and assess its psychometric properties.
STUDY 1—METHOD AND RESULTS
An initial version of the PIEQ was developed by perusing the rel-
evant literature and by interviewing college students to identify
Downloaded from http://bmo.sagepub.com by on November 8, 2007
© 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
Sarafino, Graham / ASSESSING REINFORCER PREFERENCES 837
items or experiences they think teenagers and adults like or find
pleasurable. These procedures identified 49 potential reinforcers that
were separated for the questionnaire into seven thematic categories
(see Sarafino, 2001, Figure 4.2, for the complete scale). Study 1 was
carried out to examine the items in the initial version of the PIEQ,
make changes to them, and assess the scale’s reliability and validity.
PARTICIPANTS
The participants in Study 1 were 52 undergraduates enrolled in an
upper-division psychology course; approximately 86% were
females.
MATERIALS AND PROCEDURE
The thematic categories of the initial PIEQ version and examples
of the reinforcers included are: tangible items (e.g., new clothes,
music recordings); foods (candy, popcorn); beverages (soft drinks,
juices); outcomes for work, chores, or skills (money, praise or feed-
back); friends’ or relatives’ actions (giving affection, invitation for a
party); passive leisure activities (watching TV, listening to music);
and active leisure activities (playing athletics, reading). No category
had fewer than five reinforcers in it. The instructions asked the par-
ticipants to use a 5-point scale (0 = not at all,4 = very much) to “rate
how much you like to receive, have, or do” each item or experience.
The participants were also told to assume that the items or experi-
ences available for each listed reinforcer were “about as good as they
could get” for that type of reinforcer (i.e., ones “you would choose
from an array” of similar options). Each category had spaces in
which participants could add items or experiences that were not
included in the list.
Testing was conducted in three 10- to 15-minute sessions during
class periods, 1 week apart, beginning with the first meeting of the
semester. The students were not told in advance that testing would
occur. To coordinate surveys across sessions and maintain
anonymity, each participant composed and wrote on the materials a
code based on his or her birth month and home zip code. For the first
and third sessions, the procedure was exactly as described above; the
Downloaded from http://bmo.sagepub.com by on November 8, 2007
© 2006 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized
distribution.
no reviews yet
Please Login to review.
