EVALUATION OF A MULTIPLE-STIMULUS PRESENTATION FORMAT FOR ASSESSING REINFORCER PREFERENCES

We compared three methods for presenting stimuli during reinforcer-preference assessments: a paired-stimulus format (PS), a multiple-stimulus format in which selections were made with replacement (MSW), and a multiple-stimulus format in which selections were made without replacement (MSWO). Results obtained for 7 participants showed moderate to high rank-order correlations between the MSWO and PS procedures and a similar number of identified reinforcers. In addition, the time to administer the MSWO procedure was comparable to that required for the MSW method and less than half that required to administer the PS procedure. Subsequent tests of reinforcement effects revealed that some stimuli selected in the PS and MSWO procedures, but not selected in the MSW procedure, functioned as reinforcers for arbitrary responses. These preliminary results suggest that the multiple-stimulus procedure without replacement may share the respective advantages of the other methods.     

EMERGENCE OF REINFORCER PREFERENCE AS A FUNCTION OF SCHEDULE REQUIREMENTS AND STIMULUS SIMILARITY

Tustin (1994) recently observed that an individual's preference for one of two concurrently available reinforcers under low schedule requirements (concurrent fixed-ratio [FR] 1) switched to the other reinforcer when the schedule requirements were high (concurrent FR 10). We extended this line of research by examining preference for similar and dissimilar reinforcers (i.e., those affecting the same sensory modality and those affecting different sensory modalities). Two individuals with developmental disabilities were exposed to an arrangement in which pressing two different panels produced two different reinforcers according to progressively increasing, concurrent-ratio schedules. When two dissimilar stimuli were concurrently available (food and a leisure item), no clear preference for one item over the other was observed, regardless of the FR schedules in effect (FR 1, 2, 5, 10, and 20). By contrast, when two similar stimuli were concurrently available (two food items), a clear preference for one item emerged as the schedule requirements were increased from FR 1 to FR 5 or FR 10. These results are discussed in terms of implications for conducting preference assessments and for selecting reinforcers to be used under training conditions in which response requirements are relatively high or effortful.     

USING A CHOICE ASSESSMENT TO PREDICT REINFORCER EFFECTIVENESS

A choice assessment has been found to be a more accurate method of identifying preferences than is single-item presentation. However, it is not clear whether the effectiveness of reinforcement varies positively with the degree of preference (i.e., whether the relative preference based on the results of a choice assessment predicts relative reinforcer effectiveness). In the current study, we attempted to address this question by categorizing stimuli as high, middle, and low preference based on the results of a choice assessment, and then comparing the reinforcing effectiveness of these stimuli using a concurrent operants paradigm. High-preference stimuli consistently functioned as reinforcers for all 4 clients. Middle-preference stimuli functioned as reinforcers for 2 clients, but only when compared with low-preference stimuli. Low-preference stimuli did not function as reinforcers when compared to high- and middle-preference stimuli. These results suggest that a choice assessment can be used to predict the relative reinforcing value of various stimuli, which, in turn, may help to improve programs for clients with severe to profound disabilities.     

ON THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT OUTCOMES AND PROGRESSIVE‐RATIO SCHEDULE ASSESSMENTS OF STIMULUS VALUE

The current study examined whether stimuli of different preference levels would be associated with different amounts of work maintained by the stimuli, as determined through progressive‐ratio schedule break points. Using a paired‐choice preference assessment, stimuli were classified as high, moderate, or low preference for 4 individuals with developmental disabilities. The stimuli were then tested three times each using a progressive‐ratio schedule (step size of 1; the break‐point criterion was 1 min). In 10 of 12 possible comparisons, higher preference stimuli produced larger break points than did lower preference stimuli.     

EVALUATION OF A BRIEF STIMULUS PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT

We evaluated the utility of a brief (5-min) stimulus preference assessment for individuals with developmental disabilities. Participants had noncontingent (free) access to an array of stimuli and could interact with any of the stimuli at any time. Stimuli were never withdrawn or withheld from the participants during a 5-min session. In Experiment 1, the brief preference assessment was conducted for 10 participants to identify differentially preferred stimuli, and reinforcer assessments were conducted to test the reinforcing efficacy of those stimuli identified as highly preferred. In Experiment 2, a comparison was conducted between the brief preference assessment and a commonly used paired-stimulus preference assessment. Collectively, results demonstrated that the brief preference assessment identified stimuli that functioned as reinforcers for a simple operant response, identified preferred stimuli that were differentially effective as reinforcers compared to nonpreferred stimuli, was associated with fewer problem behaviors, and required less time to complete than a commonly used paired-stimulus preference assessment.     

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN SINGLE VERSUS DAILY PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT OUTCOMES AND REINFORCER EFFICACY UNDER PROGRESSIVE‐RATIO SCHEDULES

Research has suggested that a daily multiple‐stimulus‐without‐replacement (MSWO) preference assessment may be more sensitive to changes in preference than other assessment formats, thereby resulting in greater correspondence with reinforcer efficacy over time ( DeLeon et al., 2001 ). However, most prior studies have measured reinforcer efficacy using rate of responding under single‐operant arrangements and dense schedules or under concurrent‐operants arrangements. An alternative measure of reinforcer efficacy involves the evaluation of responding under progressive‐ratio (PR) schedules. In the present study, 7 participants were given a single paired‐stimulus (PS) preference assessment followed by daily MSWO preference assessments. After each daily MSWO, participants responded for each stimulus on a PR schedule. The correspondence between break points and preferences, as assessed by the 2 assessment formats, was examined. Results demonstrated that both preference assessments did equally well at predicting reinforcer efficacy, although the PS more consistently identified the most effective reinforcer.     

Examination of relative reinforcement effects of stimuli identified through pretreatment and daily brief preference assessments.

Several brief preference assessments have recently been developed to identify reinforcers for individuals with developmental disabilities. One purported advantage of brief assessments is that they can be administered frequently, thus accommodating shifts in preference and presumably enhancing reinforcement effects. In this study, we initially conducted lengthy paired‐choice preference assessments and identified a hierarchy of preferred items for 5 individuals with developmental disabilities. Subsequently, brief multiple‐stimulus‐without‐replacement assessments using the same items were completed each day prior to work sessions. On days when results of the daily brief assessment differed from the one‐time lengthy assessment, the relative reinforcing effects of the top items from each assessment were compared in a concurrent‐schedule arrangement. The results revealed that when the two assessments differed, participants generally allocated more responses to the task associated with the daily top‐ranked item.     

EFFECTS OF PREFERENCE AND REINFORCER VARIATION ON WITHIN-SESSION PATTERNS OF RESPONDING

We examined correspondence between preference assessment outcome and within‐session patterns of responding in one subject with autism. Responding maintained by a single highly preferred item resulted in a greater total number of responses, a slower decline in within‐session response rates, and a greater proportion of short interresponse times compared to responding maintained by varied moderately preferred (MP) stimuli. Presenting varied MP stimuli within the same session produced greater levels and more sustained responding than presenting those same stimuli individually.     

REINFORCER ASSESSMENT FOR CHILDREN WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES AND VISUAL IMPAIRMENTS

We assessed the applicability of two previously developed reinforcer assessment procedures to children with developmental disabilities and visual impairments. Greater differentiation between stimuli was observed with a choice procedure than with a preference procedure. Measurement of compliance and rate of responding in adaptive skill training confirmed that the choice procedure accurately identified reinforcing stimuli. The preference procedure produced false positive predictions of reinforcer efficacy.     

Examination of ambiguous stimulus preferences with duration-based measures

Items that produced ambiguous results in an approach-based preference assessment were reassessed using a duration-based assessment. The reinforcing effects of three items on free-operant responding were subsequently tested. The results suggested that the duration-based assessment produced slightly more differentiated results and that predictions about reinforcer value, based on this assessment, were accurate.     

ASSESSMENT OF STIMULUS PREFERENCE AND REINFORCER VALUE WITH PROFOUNDLY RETARDED INDIVIDUALS

We evaluated a procedure for identifying potential reinforcers with profoundly retarded individuals. In Experiment 1, six persons were repeatedly exposed to 16 stimuli, and approach behaviors to each stimulus were used to identify preferred and nonpreferred stimuli. In Experiment 2, we examined the reinforcing properties of preferred and nonpreferred stimuli by delivering them contingently on the occurrence of arbitrarily selected responses. Results revealed that the preferred stimulus conditions typically produced higher rates of responding than did either the baseline or the nonpreferred stimulus conditions, suggesting that the procedure can be used to assess reinforcer value for individuals with limited behavioral repertoires.     

ON THE RELATION OF MANDS AND THE FUNCTION OF DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR

When standard analogue functional analysis procedures produce inconclusive results in children with conversational speech, the child's mands may help to identify the function of destructive behavior. In the current investigation, functional analyses conducted with 2 children who exhibited self-injury, aggression, and property destruction were undifferentiated across conditions. Based on informal observations and school and parental report, an analysis was conducted using mands to help determine the function of the destructive behavior. Using a multielement design, the therapist's compliance with the child's mands occurred either on a fixed-ratio (FR) 1 schedule or contingent on destructive behavior. Destructive behavior occurred at high and consistent levels when reinforcement of mands was contingent on destructive behavior and at near-zero levels when reinforcement of mands occurred on the FR 1 schedule. Based on these results, a second analysis was conducted in which compliance to mands occurred only when the child appropriately requested it (i.e., functional communication training plus extinction) and, for 1 child, compliance with mands was terminated contingent upon destructive behavior (i.e., functional communication training plus response cost). For both children, the rates of destructive behavior decreased markedly. The results suggest that assessing the child's mands may be useful in decreasing destructive behavior when a functional analysis is inconclusive.     

The effects of brief and extended stimulus availability on preference

The effects of stimulus availability on preference were evaluated using two conditions of a modified preference assessment. Different preference hierarchies were found in 15-s access conditions than in 15-min access conditions. Subsequent comparisons of a short-availability high-preference stimulus and a long-availability high-preference stimulus verified differential preferences for stimuli based on duration of availability.     

THE EFFECTS OF CHOICE AND TASK PREFERENCE ON THE WORK PERFORMANCE OF ADULTS WITH SEVERE DISABILITIES

We evaluated the effects of choice versus the assignment of tasks of varying preferences on the work engagement of adults with severe disabilities. The combined results of two experiments suggest that the relative preference for a task may be an important variable in the effectiveness of choice for some individuals.     

EVALUATION OF THE MULTIPLE-STIMULUS WITHOUT REPLACEMENT PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT METHOD USING ACTIVITIES AS STIMULI

The current study examined the accuracy of the multiple-stimulus without replacement (MSWO) preference assessment for identifying preferred common classroom activities as reinforcers with children with behavioral disorders. The accuracy of predictions from the MSWO regarding high, medium, and low stimulus preference was tested by providing contingent access to activities for completing math problems within an independent seatwork format. Overall, there was an interaction effect between preference ranking (high, medium, or low) and number of problems completed. The results confirm and extend previous findings regarding the accuracy of predictions with the MSWO. The findings also reveal, however, some individual differences that may account for instances in which student behavior did not conform to predictions of stimulus preference assessments.     

ON THE RELATIVE REINFORCING EFFECTS OF CHOICE AND DIFFERENTIAL CONSEQUENCES

Research on the reinforcing effects of providing choice-making opportunities to individuals with developmental disabilities (i.e., allowing them to choose reinforcers or tasks) has produced inconsistent results, perhaps because the mechanisms underlying such effects remain unclear. Choice may produce a reinforcement effect because it is correlated with differential consequences (i.e., choice may increase one's access to higher preference stimuli), or it may have reinforcement value independent of (or in addition to) the chosen stimulus. In Experiment 1, we used a concurrent-operants arrangement to assess preference for a choice condition (in which participants selected one of two available reinforcers) relative to a no-choice condition (in which the therapist selected the same reinforcers on a yoked schedule). All 3 participants preferred the choice option. In Experiment 2, we altered the schedules so that the participant selected one of two lower preference reinforcers in the choice condition, whereas the therapist selected a higher preference stimulus for the participant either half or all of the time in the no-choice condition. Participants typically allowed the therapist to select reinforcers for them (i.e., they allocated responding to the no-choice condition) when it resulted in greater access to higher preference stimuli.     

Assessing preferences of individuals with developmental disabilities using alternative stimulus modalities: A systematic review

The purpose of this systematic review was to identify investigations comparing the efficacy of alternative modality (e.g., pictorial, verbal, video) stimulus preference assessments for individuals with developmental disabilities. We identified articles by searching peer‐reviewed journals using the PsycINFO and ERIC databases, conducting table of contents searches of common behavioral outlets, and conducting ancestral searches of recent reviews and practitioner summaries of preference assessment methodology. A total of 32 articles met our inclusion criteria. These studies were then coded across a variety of features to gain a better understanding of the efficacy of alternative format preference assessments for individuals with developmental disabilities. In addition, we reviewed this literature for the use of prerequisite‐skill assessments and contingent‐reinforcer access to further investigate the relation between these variables and the accuracy of pictorial, verbal, and video preference assessments. A variety of methodological concerns are discussed as well as suggestions for future research.     

Effects of video self-modeling on the preference and reinforcer value of toys for children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder

A primary characteristic of autism spectrum disorder includes restrictive and repetitive patterns of behavior. Because having few preferred items and activities can lead to social, communicative, and educational barriers, it is important to increase the number of preferred stimuli in the individual's environment. One way to do this is through conditioned reinforcement via observation. Such procedures involve the acquisition of a skill or change in behavior as a result of indirect contact (i.e., observation) with contingencies received by others. While conditioning through observation has been shown to be effective, one novel approach is video self-modeling. The purpose of the current study was to assess the effects of video self-modeling on the preference and reinforcer value of toys for children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder.     

The effects of providing access to stimuli following choice making during vocal preference assessments

Two variations of a vocal paired-stimulus preference assessment were evaluated to determine whether the verbal reports of preference, given by individuals with developmental disabilities when no access to the activity was given, matched their verbal reports when access to the activity was given contingent on their choice. The results indicated different outcomes between the two methods for 6 of the 7 participants. Subsequent reinforcer assessments, conducted for 2 participants, showed that activities identified in the preference assessments that provided access contingent on selection resulted in more responding than did activities identified in the preference assessment that did not include access to items following their selection.