|
| Development and Refinement of Preference Assessment Procedures |
| Sunday, May 30, 2004 |
| 10:30 AM–11:50 AM |
| Constitution A |
| Area: DDA; Domain: Applied Research |
| Chair: Richard B. Graff (New England Center for Children) |
| Abstract: Learning Objectives
Determine how to conduct pictorial preference assessments.
Determine how to conduct verbal preference assessments.
Describe the advantages of using a limited free operant preference assessment procedure.
Identify the advantages and disadvantages of approach and duration measures of preference. |
| |
| Further Evaluation of Pictorial Preference Assessments |
| MARK P. GROSKREUTZ (New England Center for Children), Richard B. Graff (New England Center for Children), Kelly Collins (New England Center for Children) |
| Abstract: Tangible, pictorial with access, and pictorial without access preference assessments were compared for three individuals with developmental disabilities. During tangible and pictorial with access preference assessments, two stimuli (edibles or line drawings) were placed in front of the participant on each trial. The participant gained access to the stimulus that was approached or touched. During pictorial without access preference assessments, two line drawings were placed in front of the participant; however, touching a line drawing did not lead to the corresponding stimulus being delivered. During preference assessment sessions, blocks of trials of each assessment type were alternated. Percentages of approach responses were calculated, and preference hierarchies were developed for each assessment. Results indicated that all three assessments yielded similar preference hierarchies for all participants. Reinforcer assessments were conducted using an ABAB design. During baseline phases (A), no programmed consequence was provided for responding on a vocational task. During reinforcement phases (B), a high or low preference item was delivered for responding. Reinforcer assessments verified that items identified as highly preferred functioned as reinforcers for all participants. Interobserver agreement data were collected in 50% of preference and 58% of reinforcer assessment sessions and was 100%. |
| |
| Using Verbal Preference Assessments to Identify Community-based Reinforcers |
| GARIFALIA GALIATSATOS (New England Center for Children), Richard B. Graff (New England Center for Children) |
| Abstract: Although verbal preference assessments (VPA) have been used to successfully identify reinforcers such as edible and tangible items, their utility in identifying preferred community activities has not been explored. In this study, five individuals with developmental disabilities, ages 12-17, participated. All participants had token reinforcement programs that allowed them to access community activities contingent on the absence of challenging behavior. Once sufficient tokens had been accumulated, a VPA was conducted with six community activities. In the VPA, on each trial two stimuli were randomly selected, and participants were asked, "Do you want to go to x or y"; no consequence was provided for naming one of the stimuli. The percentage of opportunities each stimulus was named was calculated, and preference hierarchies were developed. Interobserver agreement (IOA) data were recorded in 89% of sessions across participants and assessments; mean IOA was 99%. Immediately after completing the VPA, the participant traded in their tokens and went to the community location of their choice. On five of eight occasions, the participant traded in their tokens to access the item that ranked first on the VPA; on the other three occasions, the participant chose the item ranked second on the assessment. |
| |
| A Limited Free Operant Approach to Evaluating Preferences |
| GARY M. PACE (May Center for Education and Neurorehabilitation), Erin Dunn (May Center for Education and Neurorehabilitation), Serra Riley (May Center for Education and Neurorehabilitation), Robin Codding (May Center for Education and Neurorehabilitation), Christina Vorndran (May Center for Education and Neurorehabilitation), James K. Luiselli (May Center for Education and Neurorehabilitation), Cindy Cochran (May Center for Education and Neurorehabilitation) |
| Abstract: Several preference assessment procedures have been presented in the literature, each associated with relative strengths and limitations. The free operant procedure has been demonstrated to be time efficient, and has been associated with few problem behaviors. In contrast, the multiple stimulus without replacement procedure requires more time, but is associated with fewer false negatives. This study presents an alternative to the current preference assessments that combines the strengths of these two measures. The limited free operant (LFO) procedure allows participants to access any of multiple items presented to them; however, participants were able to access only one item at a time. Following two minutes of consecutive manipulation the selected item was removed. Compared to the traditional free operant procedure, the LFO was able to identify additional preferences for four of eight participates in Study 1. Additionally, there was no difference in the rate of problem behaviors associated with each procedure. Study 2 replicated the results of Study I in two of five additional participates, and directly assessed if those stimuli identified as preferences in the LFO procedure, but not the free operant procedure, functioned as reinforcers. These results suggest that the LFO is a practical and efficient preference assessment. |
| |
| Examination of Duration-based Measures within Stimulus Choice Preference Assessments |
| AMY L. CHRISTENSEN (University of Nevada, Reno), Michele D. Wallace (University of Nevada, Reno), Iser Guillermo DeLeon (The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine) |
| Abstract: Stimulus choice preference assessments are routinely used by clinicians to identify preferred stimuli for individuals who Cannot otherwise express preferences. The primary dependent measure during these assessments is percentage of approach responses. Therefore, those stimuli that are approached on the greatest percentage of trials are deemed most preferred and are subsequently used as reinforcers. Other preference assessments have used duration of engagement (i.e., the amount of time in which individuals engage stimuli when available) as an index of preference. In the current study, we directly compared preference hierarchies of approach- and duration-based measures in the context of a paired -choice assessment. Subsequently, a reinforcer assessment was conducted in an effort to test and compare preferred stimuli identified during the preference assessment. Results indicated that only those stimuli that were approached on a large percentage of assessment trials during the paired-choice assessment were successful in maintaining high levels of responding over time. Thus, these results revealed that for all three participants, approach measures were better predictors of reinforcer durability relative to duration of engagement. Interobserver agreement data collected during preference and reinforcer assessments was above 91% for all participants. |
|
| |