|
| Comparing Preference and Reinforcer Assessment Methods with Varying Populations |
| Tuesday, May 29, 2007 |
| 10:30 AM–11:50 AM |
| Ford AB |
| Area: DDA/AUT; Domain: Applied Research |
| Chair: Tracey Toran (New England Center for Children) |
| Discussant: Richard B. Graff (New England Center for Children) |
| CE Instructor: Richard B. Graff, M.S. |
| Abstract: This symposium presents research on comparing different types of preference assessments in varying populations. In the first study, verbal and tangible paired-stimulus preference assessments were compared in 4 preschoolers with autism. In the tangible assessment, on each trial 2 stimuli were placed in front of the participant. In the verbal assessment, participants were asked, Do you want x or y. The two assessments identified the same most- and least-preferred item for only 2 of 4 participants, suggesting that verbal assessments may not reliably identify reinforcers for young children with autism. In the second study, preference assessments were conducted using differing stimulus modalities (pictures, written words, and spoken words) with 9 typically-developing elementary students. Results indicated that assessments using pictures and written words most closely approximated results from tangible assessments, and vocal stimuli least approximated results using tangible stimuli. In the third study, paired-stimulus and multiple stimulus without replacement preference assessments were conducted across a large number of participants to determine how often preference assessments were associated with problem behavior. Results indicated that different types of assessments were associated with varying amounts of challenging behavior. Results from all studies add to the literature on accurately identifying reinforcers in various populations. |
| |
| Using Preference Assessments to Evaluate the Correspondence between “Saying” and “Doing” in Preschoolers with ASDs. |
| THERESA CERRONE (New England Center for Children), Amy D. Lipcon (New England Center for Children), Danielle Vigeant (New England Center for Children), Richard B. Graff (New England Center for Children) |
| Abstract: Although a great deal of research has been published on identifying reinforcers for individuals with developmental disabilities, the extent to which preschool children with autism can identify their own reinforcers has rarely been explored. In this study, verbal and tangible paired-stimulus preference assessments were compared in 4 preschoolers with autism. In the tangible assessment, on each trial 2 stimuli were placed in front of the participant. In the verbal assessment, on each trial participants were asked, “Do you want x or y”. For both assessments, the percentage of opportunities each stimulus was chosen or named was calculated, and preference hierarchies were developed. A second observer independently collected data on 50% of trials on both assessments. For all participants, interobserver agreement was above 98% for the stimulus chosen or named. The two assessments identified the same most- and least-preferred item for only 2 of 4 participants; for these participants, reinforcer assessments demonstrated that high-preference items functioned more effectively as reinforcers than low-preference items. These results suggest that verbal preference assessments may be reliable predictors of reinforcers for some, but not all, young children with autism. |
| |
| Alternative Preference Assessment Methods for Elementary School Students. |
| CLAIRE C ST. PETER (West Virginia University), Elizabeth S. Athens (University of Florida), Timothy R. Vollmer (University of Florida) |
| Abstract: Common stimulus preference assessments may have limitations with typically-developing elementary school students. In particular, assessments may involve lengthy periods of time or consumption of large amounts of edible items. We assessed the possibility of using other stimulus modalities (pictures, written words, and spoken words) during preference assessments. Nine typically-developing elementary students participated. To determine the reliability of comparisons over time, we first assessed test-retest with paired choice (PC) and multiple stimulus without replacement (MSWO) assessments, using edible items. Test-retest results were acceptable for 5 of the 9 participants. Acceptable test-retest was necessary for the comparison of alternative stimulus modalities because comparisons across stimulus types would not be valid if divergent outcomes were obtained using the edible item. For these 5 participants, consistent test-retest allowed more confident comparisons between the alternative stimulus modalities and actual item assessments. During alternative assessments, participant preference was determined by their selection of pictures, written words, or spoken words corresponding to the actual items. Overall, results from pictorial stimuli most closely approximated results using actual stimuli and vocal stimuli least approximated results using actual stimuli. Alternative stimulus modalities might be viable for preference assessments with typically-developing students, particularly when limitations of item-based assessments are a concern. |
| |
| A Comparison of Stimulus Preference Assessments for Participants Who Exhibit Problem Behavior. |
| JESSICA J. ALVERSON (New England Center for Children), Eileen M. Roscoe (New England Center for Children), Timothy Piskura (New England Center for Children) |
| Abstract: When conducting stimulus preference assessments, dependent variables of interest often include differential approach responding, assessment duration, and preference stability. A dependent variable that has received little attention is participants’ problem behavior associated with different assessment methods. During Study 1, we conducted two commonly used preference assessment methods, the paired-stimulus (PS) and multiple stimulus without replacement (MSWO) methods across a large number of participants to determine how often preference assessments were associated with problem behavior. During Study 2, functional analyses were conducted with a subset of participants from Study 1 who exhibited problem behavior during preference assessments. Following this, repeated preference assessments, including the PS, MSWO, and response restriction (RR) methods, were conducted to identify whether different methods were more or less likely to occasion problem behavior. Based on the outcomes, further data analyses or treatment assessments were conducted to identify the antecedent event associated with problem behavior or to identify a treatment that could be used in conjunction with preference assessments. |
|
| |