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.     

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.     

Training staff to conduct a paired-stimulus preference assessment

Three staff members were trained to conduct stimulus preference assessments using a paired-stimulus format with 8 children with autism. Staff were trained to mastery level using brief instruction, a video model, and rehearsal with verbal feedback. Training took about 80 min per staff member. Results demonstrated that staff rapidly learned to correctly perform paired-stimulus preference assessments with children.     

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.     

Evaluation of a brief multiple-stimulus preference assessment in a naturalistic context

We evaluated a brief multiple-stimulus preference assessment within the context of an early intervention program for 3 children who had been diagnosed with autism. Subsequent curriculum-based reinforcer evaluations confirmed the predictions of the preference assessments. In addition, eight additional preference assessments that were conducted over a period of 1 month indicated generally stable preferences for 2 of the 3 participants.     

Further refinement of video‐based brief multiple‐stimulus without replacement preference assessments

We compared the results of a brief video‐based multiple‐stimulus without replacement preference assessment with no access to chosen activities (MSWO‐NO) to the results of the same assessment with access (MSWO‐WA) with four children with autism. We also compared instructor rankings of activities to MSWO‐WA results. Strong to moderate correlations between MSWO‐NO and MSWO‐WA assessment results were found across all participants. The correlation between MSWO‐WA and instructor rankings ranged from strong to low across all participants. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.     

Further examination of video‐based preference assessments without contingent access

The first purpose of this study was to attempt to replicate previous findings that video‐based preference assessments without access to selected stimuli may accurately predict relative reinforcing efficacy of stimuli. To do this, we conducted a concurrent operant reinforcer assessment in which we evaluated the relative reinforcing value of highly preferred and less preferred items identified in a video‐based preference assessment. The second purpose of this study was to begin to evaluate the potential behavioral mechanisms responsible for the validity of this assessment. To conduct this analysis, we evaluated the relative reinforcing value of those same stimuli depicted in video format and then compared results to results obtained during the reinforcer assessment for tangible stimuli. For all five participants, stimuli identified as highly preferred functioned as reinforcers, and four of five participants, responding during the reinforcer assessment was similar in the presence of tangible stimuli and videos depicting those stimuli.     

Evaluation of an efficient method for training staff to implement stimulus preference assessments

We used a brief training procedure that incorporated feedback and role-play practice to train staff members to conduct stimulus preference assessments, and we used group-comparison methods to evaluate the effects of training. Staff members were trained to implement the multiple-stimulus-without-replacement assessment in a single session and the paired-stimulus method in another single session. In all 16 cases (2 assessments for 8 trainees), correct responding increased to over 80% accuracy; in 14 of those 16 cases, it increased to over 90% accuracy. Thus, training produced mastery-level performance in a single training session in almost all cases.     

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.     

Effect of conducting behavioral observations and ratings on staff implementation of a paired-stimulus preference assessment

We assessed the effects of trainees observing and rating the accuracy of others implementing a paired-stimulus preference assessment from video on the trainees' subsequent implementation accuracy. These observational experiences increased implementation accuracy with both a confederate and an actual consumer. These results suggest conducting observations and accuracy ratings may prepare staff to implement behavioral procedures without need of a dedicated trainer.     

The multiple-stimulus-without-replacement preference assessment tool and its predictive validity

This study demonstrates the use of two web-based programs, one to identify video preferences and the other to assess their reinforcing effects. We used the Multiple-Stimulus-Without-Replacement Preference Assessment Tool (MSWO PAT) to identify the video preference hierarchies of seven participants, ages 4–11 years old. We then used a customized reinforcer assessment program that arranged a concurrent-chains preparation with programmed conjugate schedules of reinforcement. Button presses emitted by participants modulated the quality (volume and opacity) of selected videos on a moment-to-moment basis, allowing us to identify the reinforcing effects of the videos in little time. The results showed that the preference assessment had predictive value for five of seven participants. We discuss the MSWO PAT, parameters that may affect the identification of preferences and the use of conjugate schedules to identify reinforcers.     

Evaluation of a self-instruction package for conducting stimulus preference assessments

Research suggests that inexperienced individuals cannot accurately implement stimulus preference assessments given written instructions alone. Training that includes written instructions supplemented with feedback from a professional with expertise in conducting preference assessments has proven effective; unfortunately, expert-facilitated direct training may not be widely available. In the current study, we used multiple baseline designs to evaluate the efficacy of an antecedent-only self-instructional package to train staff members to implement two methods of stimulus preference assessments. Accuracy was low when participants had access to written instructions alone. When access to enhanced written instructions was provided (i.e., technical jargon was minimized; instructions included pictures, diagrams, and step-by-step examples), inexperienced staff accurately implemented the assessments. Results are discussed in terms of opportunities to disseminate behavior-analytic technologies through self-instruction and print resources.     

Comparing stimulus preference and response force in a conjugate preparation

Researchers used a conjugate preparation to evaluate how response force changed based on participants' preferences for visual stimuli. First, researchers used a verbal preference assessment to evaluate each participant's preference for viewing for five object categories of visual stimuli; this process identified high preference (HP) stimuli and low preference stimuli for most participants. Thereafter, researchers exposed each participant to the five stimulus categories in a randomized order while using a force dynamometer to measure their response force to increase visual clarity of each stimulus. Results indicate the majority of participants' HP stimuli corresponded to the stimulus category for which they exerted the highest mean force. These preliminary findings suggest conjugate preparations involving response force may provide another option for measuring the relative value of some stimulus events.     

Further evaluation of low-ranked items in stimulus-choice preference assessments

The generality of the findings reported by DeLeon, Iwata, and Roscoe (1997) was examined by conducting two stimulus-choice preference assessments, the second of which evaluated low-ranked items from the initial assessment. Results for the 2 participants suggested that supplementary assessments of low-ranked items may be useful for identifying a wider variety of reinforcing stimuli.     

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.