Association for Behavior Analysis International

Formal preference assessment technology has evolved over the years to incorporate video and GIF-based procedures (Morris & Vollmer, 2020; Snyder et al. 2012). These procedures have demonstrated reliability when compared to traditional tangible assessments and may more accurately capture learner preferences for activities than static images. Research from video-modeling literature suggests that the perspective used to record the model, whether from a third person (basic) or first person (point-of-view, or POV), impacts the model’s effectiveness in promoting skill acquisition. However, a formal evaluation of perspective in video-based activity preference assessments has not yet been conducted. The current study addresses this gap by comparing traditional tangible paired stimulus preference assessments (PSPA) with two GIF-based assessments, where GIFs were recorded from either a basic or POV perspective, with two individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). There was a stronger correspondence between the tangible assessment and one of the two GIF-based assessments for each participant, though outcomes were idiosyncratic. Additionally, client preference for video perspective was evaluated, with one participant displaying a slight preference. The implications of these findings for the use of GIF-based preference assessments will be discussed.

The assessment and treatment of severe problem behavior has been widely researched within the literature of applied behavior analysis (Newcomb & Hagopian, 2018). The evolution of treatments in the field has led to discussions of incorporating and prioritizing social validity and compassionate care into treatment (Werntz et al., 2023). Consequently, the Behavior Analyst Certification Board recently added assent to the ethical code, highlighting the fields push to incorporate assent into our procedures. With this, Rajaraman et al. (2021) recently introduced the Enhanced Choice Model (ECM) which incorporates assent within the treatment framework. Despite initial empirical evaluation successes, the ECM has only been applied to seven individuals who were between 4-9 years old. Additionally, the ECM has not been extensively evaluated with individuals who have limited communication skills or communicate via other modalities (e.g., card exchange). The purpose of this study is to extend previous research by providing additional procedures for participants for whom the original ECM procedures are not effective. Secondly, it is to replicate and validate the procedures outlined by Rajaraman et al. (2021) and Staubitz et al. (2022) in a clinical setting, targeting a broader age range and varying communication abilities among individuals with severe problem behaviors

Choice, often a part of the human experience, may promote opportunities for expressing preference or control over daily experiences. It has been shown to effectively decrease challenging behaviors and increase desirable ones for individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Choice may be incorporated into clinical practice by offering options amongst effective teaching procedures, behavior reduction procedures, or stimuli for individuals with ASD using a concurrent chains (CC) procedure. During a CC, multiple initial link stimuli are presented and when one is option is selected, an intervention procedure or component via a corresponding terminal link is experienced. Cumulative selections of initial links may allow practitioners to determine preference for or acceptability of the terminal link. To explore clinical utility, a literature review evaluating how CC procedures have been conducted in the published literature may be valuable. Although Hanley (2010) provided procedural recommendations (e.g., number of links, evaluation timeframe) for the use of CC procedures, the extent to which research has adhered to these recommendations remains unknown. In a recent review, Auten et al. (2024) summarized findings on the use of CC procedures for treatment preference research; however, opportunities to further explore components of CC research (e.g., component duration, implementer, evaluation timeframe, termination criteria) remain. The purpose of the current review was to assess the scope of application of CC procedures and review additional variables in an attempt to describe current use of CC procedures with individuals with ASD. Clinical recommendations and suggestions for future research will be discussed.