Evaluating two iterations of a paired stimulus preference assessment
The paired stimulus preference assessment (PSPA) is commonly used in both research and practice. However, two iterations have been described: a single‐presentation arrangement in which each tested stimulus is paired with one another once and a double‐presentation arrangement in which each tested sti...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Behavioral interventions 2024-02, Vol.39 (1), p.n/a |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | n/a |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | |
| container_title | Behavioral interventions |
| container_volume | 39 |
| creator | MacNaul, Hannah Nguyen, Anh Wilson, Shannon Cividini‐Motta, Catia Mandel, Natalie |
| description | The paired stimulus preference assessment (PSPA) is commonly used in both research and practice. However, two iterations have been described: a single‐presentation arrangement in which each tested stimulus is paired with one another once and a double‐presentation arrangement in which each tested stimulus is paired twice with counterbalanced placement. Each arrangement may have different advantages; however, no direct comparison exists. Thus, the purpose of the current study was to conduct both PSPA iterations to determine whether there are differences in the results obtained and which iteration was most efficient regarding time to administer. Seven participants were included, and results demonstrated high degrees of correspondence across preference assessment formats. The average time to administer the single‐presentation PSPA (M =6.6 min) was almost half the time to administer a double‐presentation PSPA (M =12.9 min), and no significant differences were observed for problem behavior, side biases, or latency to stimulus selection. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/bin.1977 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2922689256</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2922689256</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2887-94d37b55ddab088b003f37e74468b758f8c309da9b503be233ca31e8098b1fa33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10FFLwzAQB_AgCs4p-BECvvjSeUnaJnnUOXUw9EXBt5C0V8no2pq0jn37dc5Xn-4Oftwdf0KuGcwYAL9zvpkxLeUJmTDQOgGpPk8PveQJqFSek4sY1wCgcy4m5HHxY-vB9r75ov22pb7HME5tE2lbUUs76wOWNPZ-M9RDpF3ACgM2BVIbI8a4waa_JGeVrSNe_dUp-XhavM9fktXb83J-v0oKrpRMdFoK6bKsLK0DpRyAqIREmaa5cjJTlSoE6NJql4FwyIUorGCoQCvHKivElNwc93ah_R4w9mbdDqEZTxquOc-V5lk-qtujKkIb4_iv6YLf2LAzDMwhIzNmZA4ZjTQ50q2vcfevMw_L11-_B6dAZ8s</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2922689256</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluating two iterations of a paired stimulus preference assessment</title><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>MacNaul, Hannah ; Nguyen, Anh ; Wilson, Shannon ; Cividini‐Motta, Catia ; Mandel, Natalie</creator><creatorcontrib>MacNaul, Hannah ; Nguyen, Anh ; Wilson, Shannon ; Cividini‐Motta, Catia ; Mandel, Natalie</creatorcontrib><description>The paired stimulus preference assessment (PSPA) is commonly used in both research and practice. However, two iterations have been described: a single‐presentation arrangement in which each tested stimulus is paired with one another once and a double‐presentation arrangement in which each tested stimulus is paired twice with counterbalanced placement. Each arrangement may have different advantages; however, no direct comparison exists. Thus, the purpose of the current study was to conduct both PSPA iterations to determine whether there are differences in the results obtained and which iteration was most efficient regarding time to administer. Seven participants were included, and results demonstrated high degrees of correspondence across preference assessment formats. The average time to administer the single‐presentation PSPA (M =6.6 min) was almost half the time to administer a double‐presentation PSPA (M =12.9 min), and no significant differences were observed for problem behavior, side biases, or latency to stimulus selection.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1072-0847</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1099-078X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/bin.1977</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chichester: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Behavior disorders ; Behavior modification ; Bias ; counterbalanced ; Latency ; paired stimulus ; preference assessment ; problem behavior ; PspA protein ; Psychological assessment ; Psychological tests ; side bias</subject><ispartof>Behavioral interventions, 2024-02, Vol.39 (1), p.n/a</ispartof><rights>2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><rights>2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2887-94d37b55ddab088b003f37e74468b758f8c309da9b503be233ca31e8098b1fa33</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8569-0607 ; 0000-0002-4175-324X ; 0000-0001-6141-3843 ; 0000-0001-6992-9991 ; 0000-0001-5679-9294</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fbin.1977$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fbin.1977$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>MacNaul, Hannah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nguyen, Anh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilson, Shannon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cividini‐Motta, Catia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mandel, Natalie</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluating two iterations of a paired stimulus preference assessment</title><title>Behavioral interventions</title><description>The paired stimulus preference assessment (PSPA) is commonly used in both research and practice. However, two iterations have been described: a single‐presentation arrangement in which each tested stimulus is paired with one another once and a double‐presentation arrangement in which each tested stimulus is paired twice with counterbalanced placement. Each arrangement may have different advantages; however, no direct comparison exists. Thus, the purpose of the current study was to conduct both PSPA iterations to determine whether there are differences in the results obtained and which iteration was most efficient regarding time to administer. Seven participants were included, and results demonstrated high degrees of correspondence across preference assessment formats. The average time to administer the single‐presentation PSPA (M =6.6 min) was almost half the time to administer a double‐presentation PSPA (M =12.9 min), and no significant differences were observed for problem behavior, side biases, or latency to stimulus selection.</description><subject>Behavior disorders</subject><subject>Behavior modification</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>counterbalanced</subject><subject>Latency</subject><subject>paired stimulus</subject><subject>preference assessment</subject><subject>problem behavior</subject><subject>PspA protein</subject><subject>Psychological assessment</subject><subject>Psychological tests</subject><subject>side bias</subject><issn>1072-0847</issn><issn>1099-078X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp10FFLwzAQB_AgCs4p-BECvvjSeUnaJnnUOXUw9EXBt5C0V8no2pq0jn37dc5Xn-4Oftwdf0KuGcwYAL9zvpkxLeUJmTDQOgGpPk8PveQJqFSek4sY1wCgcy4m5HHxY-vB9r75ov22pb7HME5tE2lbUUs76wOWNPZ-M9RDpF3ACgM2BVIbI8a4waa_JGeVrSNe_dUp-XhavM9fktXb83J-v0oKrpRMdFoK6bKsLK0DpRyAqIREmaa5cjJTlSoE6NJql4FwyIUorGCoQCvHKivElNwc93ah_R4w9mbdDqEZTxquOc-V5lk-qtujKkIb4_iv6YLf2LAzDMwhIzNmZA4ZjTQ50q2vcfevMw_L11-_B6dAZ8s</recordid><startdate>202402</startdate><enddate>202402</enddate><creator>MacNaul, Hannah</creator><creator>Nguyen, Anh</creator><creator>Wilson, Shannon</creator><creator>Cividini‐Motta, Catia</creator><creator>Mandel, Natalie</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>K9.</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8569-0607</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4175-324X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6141-3843</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6992-9991</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5679-9294</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202402</creationdate><title>Evaluating two iterations of a paired stimulus preference assessment</title><author>MacNaul, Hannah ; Nguyen, Anh ; Wilson, Shannon ; Cividini‐Motta, Catia ; Mandel, Natalie</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2887-94d37b55ddab088b003f37e74468b758f8c309da9b503be233ca31e8098b1fa33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Behavior disorders</topic><topic>Behavior modification</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>counterbalanced</topic><topic>Latency</topic><topic>paired stimulus</topic><topic>preference assessment</topic><topic>problem behavior</topic><topic>PspA protein</topic><topic>Psychological assessment</topic><topic>Psychological tests</topic><topic>side bias</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>MacNaul, Hannah</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nguyen, Anh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wilson, Shannon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cividini‐Motta, Catia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mandel, Natalie</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><jtitle>Behavioral interventions</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>MacNaul, Hannah</au><au>Nguyen, Anh</au><au>Wilson, Shannon</au><au>Cividini‐Motta, Catia</au><au>Mandel, Natalie</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluating two iterations of a paired stimulus preference assessment</atitle><jtitle>Behavioral interventions</jtitle><date>2024-02</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>39</volume><issue>1</issue><epage>n/a</epage><issn>1072-0847</issn><eissn>1099-078X</eissn><abstract>The paired stimulus preference assessment (PSPA) is commonly used in both research and practice. However, two iterations have been described: a single‐presentation arrangement in which each tested stimulus is paired with one another once and a double‐presentation arrangement in which each tested stimulus is paired twice with counterbalanced placement. Each arrangement may have different advantages; however, no direct comparison exists. Thus, the purpose of the current study was to conduct both PSPA iterations to determine whether there are differences in the results obtained and which iteration was most efficient regarding time to administer. Seven participants were included, and results demonstrated high degrees of correspondence across preference assessment formats. The average time to administer the single‐presentation PSPA (M =6.6 min) was almost half the time to administer a double‐presentation PSPA (M =12.9 min), and no significant differences were observed for problem behavior, side biases, or latency to stimulus selection.</abstract><cop>Chichester</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><doi>10.1002/bin.1977</doi><tpages>11</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8569-0607</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4175-324X</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6141-3843</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6992-9991</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5679-9294</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1072-0847 |
| ispartof | Behavioral interventions, 2024-02, Vol.39 (1), p.n/a |
| issn | 1072-0847 1099-078X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2922689256 |
| source | Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | Behavior disorders Behavior modification Bias counterbalanced Latency paired stimulus preference assessment problem behavior PspA protein Psychological assessment Psychological tests side bias |
| title | Evaluating two iterations of a paired stimulus preference assessment |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-04T11%3A44%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluating%20two%20iterations%20of%20a%20paired%20stimulus%20preference%20assessment&rft.jtitle=Behavioral%20interventions&rft.au=MacNaul,%20Hannah&rft.date=2024-02&rft.volume=39&rft.issue=1&rft.epage=n/a&rft.issn=1072-0847&rft.eissn=1099-078X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/bin.1977&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2922689256%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2922689256&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |