A replication of the response‐restriction preference assessment

We replicated the response‐restriction (RR) preference assessment and compared results in terms of preference hierarchies to those from free‐operant and multiple stimulus without replacement (MSWO) formats with six children with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). We also assessed social validity of each format with teachers and clinicians who work with children with ASDs. Complete hierarchies were produced in four of 18 assessments and with MSWO and RR formats only. Results of the social validity assessment varied across raters, with each preference assessment format receiving the highest rating from at least one rater. Results are discussed in terms of practical recommendations and relative to the preference assessment literature as a whole.     

Evaluating the predictive validity of a single stimulus engagement preference assessment.

Most preference assessments require individuals to choose among two or more stimuli. More recently, the duration of engagement with items has been used as an index of preference. In the current study, the predictive validity of a single stimulus engagement (SSE) preference assessment was evaluated with 4 individuals. Stimuli were presented singly for a brief period while engagement with that stimulus was recorded. Although SSE preference rankings closely matched paired stimulus preference assessment rankings for only 2 of the 4 participants, relative preference rankings based on duration of engagement predicted relative reinforcer effectiveness for all participants in a subsequent concurrent‐schedule reinforcer assessment. The SSE procedure took less time to administer than the paired stimulus procedure but produced less stable preference rankings across administrations. The SSE procedure may be appropriate for individuals who have difficulty selecting one stimulus from among two or more stimuli, and it may be well suited for evaluating activities that are difficult to present in a paired stimulus format.     

Assessing preference for types of social interaction

To date, few researchers have evaluated methods for assessing preference for social interactions. Due to concerns that commonly used stimulus preference assessment methods may be inappropriate, or at least cumbersome, for the assessment of social reinforcers, we developed and evaluated a new method of assessing preference for social interactions. A social interaction preference assessment (SIPA) and a concurrent operant reinforcer assessment were conducted with five participants diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. A differentially preferred and reinforcing social interaction was identified for all five participants. The SIPA procedures, results, and the implications of these results are discussed.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Preference for fluent versus disfluent work schedules

Two studies were conducted that examined the preference of a student diagnosed with a brain injury. In Study 1, a preference assessment was followed by a three-choice concurrent-operants reinforcer assessment. Two choices resulted in access to preferred activities for completing work, and a third choice resulted in access to nothing (i.e., no activity). Unpredictably, the participant consistently chose the no-activity option. Study 2 examined why this student preferred work associated with no activity over preferred activities. Through a variety of concurrent-operants procedures, it was determined that she preferred fluent work followed by reinforcers rather than work that was broken up by access to preferred activities. Implications for research on preference are discussed.     

A comparison of picture and GIF-based preference assessments for social interaction

Researchers have recently begun to evaluate video-based preference assessments; however, only two studies have evaluated the efficacy of this preference assessment modality in assessing preference for social interactions. Four individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder who could not match pictures or graphic-interchange-format images (GIFs) of social interactions to in vivo interaction participated. We compared picture and GIF-based paired-stimulus preference assessments for social interaction and evaluated the preference assessment hierarchies by conducting a concurrent-operant reinforcer assessment including all social interactions. The GIF-based preference assessment produced similar hierarchies to the reinforcer assessment for all participants, whereas the picture-based preference assessments produced similar hierarchies to the reinforcer assessment for 2 of 4 subjects. Additionally, we conducted a modality preference assessment in which we evaluated participants' preference for viewing GIFs or pictures of social interactions, and found that 3 out of 4 subjects displayed a preference for GIFs.     

Some determinants of changes in preference over time

Results of longitudinal studies suggest that the stability of preferences varies across individuals, although it is unclear what variables account for these differences. We extended this work by conducting periodic assessments of preference for leisure activities over 3 to 6 months with 10 adults with developmental disabilities. Although previous research has collectively shown that preferences identified via repeated assessment are highly variable, our results showed that preferences were relatively stable for the majority (80%) of participants. In an attempt to identify some environmental determinants of shifts in preference, we provided extended daily access to high-preference items (preference-weakening manipulation) and paired access to low-preference items with social and edible putative reinforcers during brief sessions (preference-strengthening manipulation). Preference assessments continued over the course of these manipulations with 2 participants. Results showed that changes in preference across time could be produced systematically and suggest that naturally occurring changes in establishing operations or conditioning histories contribute to temporal shifts in preference. Implications for preference assessments, reinforcer usage, and planned attempts to change preferences are discussed.     

Evaluating the efficacy of pictorial preference assessments with children who engage in food selectivity

Preference assessments are used in practice with individuals who engage in food refusal and selectivity to identify foods that a child will readily consume before assessment and treatment. Traditional edible preference assessments may be challenging for children who engage in food refusal or selectivity as the child may not consume foods, but rather engage in inappropriate mealtime behavior simply due to the presence of food. Alternative modality preference assessments, such as pictorial, may offer benefits compared to traditional preference assessment formats (e.g., stimulus preference assessment and paired-stimulus preference assessment). The use of pictures may reduce any evocative effects of the presence of food and result in choice-making without inappropriate mealtime behavior. Experiment 1 assessed the correspondence between the hierarchies yielded from pictorial preference assessments (with and without access) to a standard edible preference assessment. Experiment 2 evaluated the accuracy of each preference assessment by presenting foods identified as preferred and non-preferred to determine if the child would accept them. Results suggested that pictorial preference assessments with access corresponded the most with the traditional edible preference assessment. Also, for one individual, the traditional preference assessment did not accurately identify foods that the participant would consume, while the pictorial preference assessment without access yielded a hierarchy.     

Response-restriction analysis: II. Alteration of activity preferences

We used response-restriction (RR) assessments to identify the preferences of 7 individuals with mental retardation for a variety of vocational and leisure activities. We subsequently increased their engagement in nonpreferred activities using several procedures: response restriction per se versus a Premack-type contingency (Study 1), supplemental reinforcement for engagement in target activities (Study 2), and noncontingent pairing of reinforcers with nonpreferred activities (Study 3). Results indicated that preferences are not immutable and can be altered through a variety of relatively benign interventions and that the results of RR assessments may be helpful in determining which types of procedures may be most effective on an individual basis.     

Functional analysis and treatment of self-injury associated with transitions.

We applied functional analysis methodology to the assessment and treatment of 2 individuals' self‐injurious behavior (SIB), which was reported to be occasioned by transitions from one activity or location to another. A structural (task) analysis of activity transitions identified at least three separate components that might influence behavior either alone or in combination: (a) termination of a prechange activity, (b) initiation of a postchange activity, and (c) movement from one location to another. Results of preference and avoidance assessments were used to identify activities to which participants were exposed in varying arrangements during transitions in a functional analysis. Results of 1 participant's functional analysis indicated that his SIB was maintained by avoidance of having to change locations, regardless of the activity terminated prior to the change or the activity initiated following it. The 2nd participant's analysis revealed the same function but also an additional one: avoidance of certain task initiations. This information was used to identify transition contexts during intervention and to design treatment procedures appropriate for a given context and behavioral function. A procedure involving advance notice of an upcoming transition had no effect on SIB, and differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA) had limited effects in the absence of extinction. Sustained decreases in SIB were observed when DRA was combined with extinction and response blocking. Further extensions of functional analysis methodology to the assessment of problem behavior in situations characterized by multiple or protracted stimulus changes are discussed.     

A systematic evaluation of preferences identified through person-centered planning for people with profound multiple disabilities

Person-centered planning is becoming a popular means of designing supports for people with disabilities. However, very little research evaluating person-centered planning exists. We evaluated the degree to which items and activities reported to be preferred in person-centered plans represented accurate preferences based on how individuals responded when presented with the items and activities. Person-centered planning meetings were conducted with 4 individuals with profound multiple disabilities to develop preference maps and to identify leisure-related preferences. A sample of the reported preferences in the plans was then systematically assessed by observing each participant's approach and avoidance responses to the items and activities. Of the sampled items and activities reported to be preferred in the plans, 42% represented moderate preferences based on the latter assessment process and 33% represented strong preferences. With 2 participants, several preferences identified in the plans were nonpreferred items and activities based on the preference assessments, and some were frequently avoided. These results suggested that although person-centered plans may identify some accurate preferences for people with profound multiple disabilities, this approach should be used cautiously. Results also suggested that such plans should be supplemented with systematic preference assessments to ensure the accuracy of identified preferences. Future research areas focus on evaluating other aspects of person-centered planning.     

Language preference and reinforcing efficacy of praise in bilingual children with disabilities

We conducted a stimulus preference assessment to identify preference for praise delivered in English versus Spanish for bilingual students. Next, a concurrent-operant reinforcer assessment was used to evaluate the reinforcer efficacy of praise in each language. Participants showed limited to no preference for one language over another. One participant showed a slight preference for Spanish praise and Spanish praise functioned as a slightly more potent reinforcer. If a participant did not prefer a specific language of praise (i.e., undifferentiated preference or equal percentage of approaches), both languages were considered to be similarly reinforcing.     

TEACHING CHOICE MAKING DURING SOCIAL INTERACTIONS TO STUDENTS WITH PROFOUND MULTIPLE DISABILITIES

We taught 4 students with profound multiple disabilities to use a microswitch communication system to request a change in recreational stimuli during social interactions with nondisabled peers. In Study 1, we conducted a preference assessment across a range of stimuli for each student. The most and least preferred stimuli were incorporated into microswitch communication system training in Study 2. During the second study, 3 of the 4 students (a) learned to use the microswitch communication system to control stimulus presentation, (b) more clearly differentiated their time among stimuli, and (c) increased their level of general alertness. Study 3 extended the use of the microswitch communication system to social interactions with nondisabled peers. Two students were more engaged in interactions when they chose when to change stimuli; 1 student was more alert when a peer chose when to change activities; a 4th student showed an undifferentiated pattern. The outcomes of the investigation are discussed in terms of the effects of controlling stimulus presentation on the behavior of students with profound multiple disabilities and the stability of preference hierarchies over time.     

Using stimulus preference assessments to identify preferred break environments

A pictorial preference assessment was conducted for 2 individuals with autism who had programmed breaks in their behavior plans. Assessed break environments were individualized, based on indirect assessments and direct observations. The most highly (HP) and least preferred (LP) environments and a control with no associated break were included in a subsequent reinforcer assessment using a concurrent‐chains arrangement within a reversal design. Participants selected a multitask sequence (initial link) associated with one of the break environments. Phase A evaluated the reinforcing properties of all three breaks; the HP was removed in Phase B. Both participants allocated more responding to HP than LP, and to LP than control, suggesting that breaks functioned as reinforcers. The results indicated that preference assessment technology can be used to identify highly preferred breaks that function as reinforcers. Social validity measures indicated that the individuals' clinicians found the results useful for future clinical programming.     

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.     

A PRELIMINARY PROCEDURE FOR PREDICTING THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF REINFORCEMENT-BASED PROCEDURES

In the current investigation, a modification was made to the preference assessment described by Pace, Ivancic, Edwards, Iwata, and Page (1985) to predict the effects of stimuli when used in a differential-reinforcement-of-other-behavior (DRO) schedule for 2 clients with severe self-injurious behavior (SIB) and profound mental retardation. Based on the results of the preference assessment, three types of stimuli were identified: (a) high-preference stimuli associated with high rates of SIB (HP/HS), (b) high-preference stimuli associated with relatively lower rates of SIB (HP/LS), and (c) low-preference stimuli associated with low rates of SIB (LP/LS). Consistent with the results of the preference assessment, the DRO schedule with HP/HS stimuli resulted in increased SIB, and the DRO schedule with LP/LS stimuli resulted in no changes in SIB. HP/LS stimuli were demonstrated reinforcers but did not result in a change in SIB when used in a DRO schedule. Thus, the stimulus preference assessment may be useful clinically in some situations for predicting both the beneficial and the negative side effects of stimuli in DRO procedures.     

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.