The Relation Between Obtained Preference Value and Reinforcer Potency

Stimulus preference assessments often include items suspected to be highly preferred. If only high‐preference stimuli are assessed, preference hierarchies may not accurately predict the results of reinforcer assessments (RA). In this study, paired‐stimulus (PS) preference assessments using items suspected to be preferred (PS‐1) generated distinct preference hierarchies. Subsequent RAs (RA‐1) indicated that high‐preference and low‐preference stimuli were associated with similar response rates. Additional assessments (PS‐2) were then conducted, using the least‐preferred item from PS‐1 plus seven new stimuli. The least‐preferred items on PS‐1 ranked as most preferred on PS‐2, and on RA‐2, the top‐ranked items functioned as reinforcers, but low‐ranked items did not. Implications for incorporating low‐preference items into clinical/educational programming are discussed. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

An alternate scoring method for the multiple stimulus without replacement preference assessment

DeLeon and Iwata (1996) described the difficulties in applying the percentage approached scoring method to the multiple stimulus without replacement (MSWO) preference assessment relative to its application in the paired stimulus assessment. This scoring method may result in highly preferred items being misidentified as moderate or low preference. In the present study, the results of 57 MSWO assessments were scored using both the percentage approach method and a point weighting method. More items were identified as highly preferred with the point weighting method. Reinforcer assessments were conducted on a subset of stimuli judged to be high preference using the point weighting method but moderately or non‐preferred when scored with the percentage approached method; all stimuli functioned as reinforcers. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Teacher report and direct assessment of preferences for identifying reinforcers for young children

Teachers were asked to identify and rank 10 preferred stimuli for 9 toddlers, and a hierarchy of preference for these items was determined via a direct preference assessment. The reinforcing efficacy of the most highly preferred items identified by each method was evaluated concurrently in a reinforcer assessment. The reinforcer assessment showed that all stimuli identified as highly preferred via the direct preference assessment and teacher rankings functioned as reinforcers. The highest ranked stimuli in the direct assessment were more reinforcing than the teachers' top-ranked stimuli for 5 of 9 participants, whereas the teachers' top-ranked stimulus was more reinforcing than the highest ranked stimulus of the direct assessment for only 1 child. A strong positive correlation between rankings generated through the two assessments was identified for only 1 of the 9 participants. Despite poor correspondence between rankings generated through the teacher interview and direct preference assessment, results of the reinforcer assessment suggest that both methods are effective in identifying reinforcers for toddlers.     

Evaluating Open-Ended Parent Reports and Direct Preference Assessments to Identify Reinforcers for Young Children With Autism

Little research has evaluated open-ended parent reports to identify reinforcers for children with autism. This study evaluated open-ended parent reports and direct preference assessments for six young children with autism in home-based therapy. Results indicated little correspondence between parent reports and direct assessment assessments for all but one child. However, a follow-up reinforcer assessment with two children showed that the top ranked stimulus from both assessments functioned as reinforcers, with one child demonstrating higher levels of responding for the top ranked stimulus from the parent report. Results tentatively support open-ended parent reports to identify reinforcers for young children with autism.     

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.     

Multiple‐stimulus preference assessments: a comparison of free‐operant and restricted‐operant formats

We compared free‐operant and restricted‐operant multiple‐stimulus preference assessments with three children diagnosed with mental retardation. The methods produced comparable results, although the free‐operant assessment identified fewer potential reinforcers than the restricted‐operant assessment. The highest‐ and lowest‐ranked stimuli from both methods were subsequently evaluated in a concurrent‐operants reinforcer assessment. All participants engaged in behavior that resulted in access to the highest‐ranked stimuli the majority of the time, thus validating both preference assessment methods as effective in identifying reinforcers. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

DISPLACEMENT OF LEISURE REINFORCERS BY FOOD DURING PREFERENCE ASSESSMENTS

Identification of reinforcers for individuals with developmental disabilities is often based on the outcome of preference assessments in which participants make selections from among a variety of items. We determined the extent to which individuals might show a general preference for food items over leisure items during such assessments and whether leisure items that are “displaced” by food items might nevertheless function as reinforcers. Arrays consisting of food items only and then nonfood items only were presented separately to 14 participants and then were ranked to determine preference. The top selections from these initial assessments were subsequently combined in a third assessment, and preferences were again established. All but 2 participants showed a general preference for food items, such that selection of nonfood items in the combined arrays was displaced downward relative to selection of nonfoods in the nonfood-only arrays. Two of the participants were exposed to a condition in which a nonfood item was delivered contingent on the occurrence of an adaptive response, and increased rates of responding by both individuals were observed. Results are discussed in terms of limitations posed by using only food items as reinforcers and the resulting need to take precautionary measures when attempting to identify nonfood reinforcers.     

Further evaluation of the use of preference categories to identify novel reinforcers: A systematic replication

Preference assessments are frequently used to identify reinforcers for individuals with autism spectrum disorder and intellectual and developmental disabilities. Although well‐established procedures have been shown to identify preferred stimuli for individual items that can be used in skill acquisition and behavior reduction programs, little research has been conducted on identifying categories of preferred items. In this study, paired‐stimulus preference assessments were conducted with 4 individuals with autism spectrum disorder. Researchers classified the edible stimuli as belonging to 1 of 4 categories: chocolate (e.g., chocolate chips and M&M's^®), salty/crunchy (e.g., chips and crackers), gummy (e.g., Swedish Fish^® and Starburst^®), or fruit/vegetable (e.g., grape and apple). Preference hierarchies were identified for individual stimuli and for categories of stimuli. For all participants, at least 3 of the 4 most preferred items came from the same category. Novel items (i.e., items not included in the preference assessments) identified by the researchers as belonging to the high‐preference category functioned as effective reinforcers during subsequent reinforcer assessments for all participants. This finding suggests that clinicians could identify likely effective edible reinforcers based on an individual's categorical preference without explicit testing.     

Identification of olfactory stimuli as reinforcers in individuals with autism: a preliminary investigation

Preference for six olfactory stimuli was assessed via paired preference assessments with three adults with autism. Using a combination multielement and reversal design, a reinforcer assessment was then conducted to determine the extent to which three (high preference, medium preference, and low preference) of the six olfactory stimuli evaluated in the preference assessment functioned as reinforcers for responding in the context of a sorting task. Relative to baseline, all of the participants exhibited increased responding for access to their high preference olfactory stimulus. The utility of olfactory stimuli as components of behavior intervention plans is discussed. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Web‐based stimulus preference assessment and reinforcer assessment for videos

This study replicated and extended the use of a web‐based multiple‐stimulus‐without‐replacement preference assessment (Curiel, Curiel, Li, Deochand, & Poling, 2018) by adding a web‐based single‐operant reinforcer assessment. Five adults diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder participated in this study. The web‐based program identified preference hierarchies for 4 of the 5 participants, and the single‐operant reinforcer assessment confirmed that the highly preferred videos functioned as reinforcers. Advantages of computer‐based stimulus preference and reinforcer assessments are discussed.     

An Evaluation of a Brief Multiple-Stimulus Without Replacement Preference Assessment Conducted in an Electronic Pictorial Format

We compared the results of a brief electronic pictorial multiple-stimulus without replacement (EP-MSWO) preference assessment to a brief tangible MSWO preference assessment in five children with autism. Results of both assessments yielded a match between high preferred (HP) toys for four participants and low preferred toys for three participants. The overall correlation between assessments across participants was strong and statistically significant (ρ = .67, p < .01). A reinforcer assessment conducted with three participants confirmed HP toys identified in the EP-MSWO functioned as reinforcers.     

Assessing object-to-picture and picture-to-object matching as prerequisite skills for pictorial preference assessments

Tangible and pictorial paired-stimulus (PPS) preference assessments were compared for 6 individuals with developmental disabilities. During tangible and PPS assessments, two edible items or photographs were presented on each trial, respectively, and approach responses were recorded. Both assessments yielded similar preference hierarchies for 3 participants who could match pictures and objects but different hierarchies for 3 participants who could not. Reinforcer assessments verified that items identified as high preference on PPS assessments functioned as reinforcers only for participants with matching skills.     

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 stimulus variation to increase reinforcer efficacy of low preference stimuli

Recent research findings suggest that low preference stimuli can be effective reinforcers. This study compared responding to high preference and low preference stimuli under continuous reinforcement. Results demonstrated that responding was greater when a high preference stimulus was presented. Other research findings suggest that stimulus variation increases the potency of reinforcers perceived to be of high preference. This study extended this line of research by evaluating whether stimulus variation would increase the potency of low preference stimuli. Results demonstrated that when three low preference stimuli were presented in a varied fashion, responding corresponded with the levels obtained when a high preference stimulus was presented. Furthermore, a varied reinforcer presentation of low preference stimuli was found to increase and maintain high percentages of correct responding and on‐task behavior to levels equal to those obtained with a high preference stimulus during a discrete trial preparation. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A COMPARISON OF REINFORCER ASSESSMENT METHODS: THE UTILITY OF VERBAL AND PICTORIAL CHOICE PROCEDURES

We compared three methods of stimulus preference assessment for verbal children and specifically evaluated the utility of a verbal choice procedure for assessing relative reinforcer value. Using a token system, relative preference for five categories of reinforcers, representing 15 different stimuli, was assessed by three methods: a reinforcer survey, a verbal stimulus-choice questionnaire, and a pictorial stimulus-choice procedure. Results showed that the verbal and pictorial stimulus-choice assessments accurately identified high- and low-preference categories for 3 of 4 participants. Survey results alone often rated multiple categories as high preference, were less likely to identify low-preference categories, and were less likely to correspond with the results of a reinforcer assessment.     

A COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION OF REINFORCER IDENTIFICATION PROCESSES FOR PERSONS WITH PROFOUND MULTIPLE HANDICAPS

We evaluated comprehensively a preference assessment for identifying reinforcers for persons with profound multiple handicaps. Four experiments were conducted involving 18 individuals. Results of Experiment 1 replicated previous findings in that the assessment identified student preferences for respective stimuli, and caregiver opinion of preferences did not coincide with the systematic assessment. Results of Experiment 2 indicated highly preferred stimuli were likely to function as reinforcers in training programs, whereas stimuli not highly preferred did not function as reinforcers. Results of Experiment 3 suggested the 12 stimuli used in the assessment represented a comprehensive stimulus set for identifying preferences, although the utility of the set sometimes could be enhanced by caregiver opinion. Results of Experiment 4 indicated the assessment identified preferences likely to be maintained over time. Overall, results are discussed in terms of identifying limits and alternatives to a behavioral teaching technology when applied to persons with profound multiple handicaps.     

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.     

Predicting preference for items during periods of extended access based on early response allocation

Top‐ranked items were identified during 30‐min free‐operant preference assessments for 9 individuals. Data from each session were analyzed to identify the item (a) that was engaged with first in each session and (b) to which the most responding was allocated after 5 min, 10 min, 15 min, 20 min, and 25 min had elapsed in each session. The results indicated that the first‐engaged item and the 5‐min high‐allocation item predicted the top‐ranked item in 55% and 62% of the sessions, respectively. The results also showed that engagement with the top‐ranked item from the first session decreased across subsequent sessions for 6 of the 9 participants. The implications of the results for brief versus extended stimulus preference assessments are discussed.     

Evaluation of absolute and relative reinforcer value using progressive-ratio schedules

We evaluated behavior exhibited by individuals with developmental disabilities using progressive-ratio (PR) schedules. High- and low-preference stimuli were determined based on the results of a paired-stimulus preference assessment and were evaluated in subsequent reinforcer and PR assessments using concurrent and single schedules of presentation. In Experiment 1, results showed that for 2 of 3 participants, stimuli determined to be low-preference functioned as reinforcers when evaluated independent of high-preference stimuli. Further, the results from Experiment 2 showed that low-preference stimuli also functioned as reinforcers under gradually increasing PR requirements. Results suggest that for cases in which a high-preference stimulus is unavailable or impractical, the contingent delivery of relatively less preferred stimuli may maintain appropriate behavior, even as schedule requirements increase.     

An examination of stimulus technology level and preference displacement during multiple stimulus without replacement preference assessments

Researchers have observed that preference for edible items may displace preference for leisure items when items from the stimulus classes are assessed together within multiple stimulus without replacement (MSWO) preference assessments. The current study extends previous research by examining patterns of preference and displacement when assessing preference for high-tech and low-tech leisure items. We conducted three separate MSWO preference assessments; one assessing low-tech items, another assessing high-tech items, and a combined assessment (using the top four high- and low-tech items from the previous assessments) to test for displacement. Preference for high-tech items fully or partially displaced preference for low-tech items in five of eight participants. We then conducted concurrent and single operant reinforcer assessments using the highly preferred high-tech and low-tech items. Reinforcer assessment results demonstrated similar levels of responding for the highest preferred high-tech and low-tech items, indicating that combining high- and low-tech items within preference assessments may influence the validity of results.