|
| Preference Assessment: Where have we been? Where are we going? |
| Tuesday, May 26, 2009 |
| 12:00 PM–1:20 PM |
| North 124 B |
| Area: AUT/EAB; Domain: Applied Behavior Analysis |
| Chair: Mary Rosswurm (Crossroads School for Children) |
| Discussant: Thomas L. Zane (The Center for Applied Behavior Analysis at The Sa) |
| CE Instructor: Kelle M. Wood Rich, M.Ed. |
| Abstract: Preference Assessment has been a widely researched topic in the practical application of applied behavior analysis. This symposium will review the current literature on preference assessment, and two current research projects regarding assessing preferences. The first research presentation will be on assessing both the efficiency and accuracy of preference assessments. Can we assess students’ preferences in a more timely manner and still find potential reinforcers. The second research presentation will present a study that compares multiple stimulus and forced-choice formats along two dimensions-duration to complete assessment, and the identification of stimuli verified to function as reinforcers. |
| |
| A Review of Preference Assessment Literature |
| KEVIN HARDY (Crossroads School for Children), Ben Bruneau (Crossroads School for Children), Cheryl J. Davis (Consultant), Mary Rosswurm (Crossroads School for Children), Michele D. Brock (Crossroads School for Children), Thomas L. Zane (The Center for Applied Behavior Analysis at The Sa), Kristen Walston (Crossroads School for Children) |
| Abstract: Determining individual preferences has been researched throughout the years. From Pace to Fisher et al, we have studied how to best assess individuals preferences to determine likely reinforcers. This presentation will review all preference assessment literature to date to discuss the history and progress of assessing individuals’ preference and what areas researchers still need to study. This presentation is designed to give an overview for the two latter presentations of actual preference assessment research to look at both the efficiency and accuracy of preference assessments with individuals with disabilities. |
| |
| Efficiency with Forced Choice Preference Assessment: Comparing Multiple Presentation Techniques |
| CHERYL J. DAVIS (Consultant), Michele D. Brock (Crossroads School for Children), Mary Rosswurm (Crossroads School for Children), Kristen Walston (Crossroads School for Children), Bonnie Abbey-Waren (Crossroads School for Children), Thomas L. Zane (The Center for Applied Behavior Analysis at The Sa) |
| Abstract: Many advances have been made through the years on how to accurately assess preferences in individuals with disabilities thus increasing performance in both academic and behaviorally programming. Yet the techniques currently used are time and resource intensive. This symposium will review all literature published thus far on preference assessment, as well as two current research projects with children with autism and related disabilities. The research present is a comparison of different preference assessment techniques, comparing time to complete, accuracy of the preferences to function as reinforcement and the different presentation techniques. Additional data will be collected prior to the presentation to determine the most efficient and accurate method for forced choice preference assessments. Since time is of the essence with our clients, utilizing the most efficient means of assessing preferences will enhance best practices for all individuals. |
| |
| The clinical utility of two reinforcement preference assessment techniques: A comparison of duration of assessment and identification of functional reinforcers |
| SEAN FIELD (School at Springbrook), Jen Hanson (School at Springbrook), Brandon Nichols (School at Springbrook), Traci Lanner (Springbrook), Thomas L. Zane (The Center for Applied Behavior Analysis at The Sa) |
| Abstract: In order to maximize the learning of skills, it is crucial that the most powerful reinforcers be used. The research literature has described several different methods of reinforcement preference assessment, including forced choice, free-operant, and multiple stimulus array, to name but a few. Researchers have also tested many variables to determine their potential impact on identification of reinforcers, including setting events, duration of exposure to tested stimuli, and differing schedules of delivery. From a clinical perspective, an important question is what is the most efficient preference assessment that will produce the most valid identification of potential reinforcers? The purpose of this study was to compare multiple stimulus and forced-choice formats along two dimensions-duration to complete assessment, and the identification of stimuli verified to function as reinforcers. Several children diagnosed with developmental disabilities/autism served as subjects. Upon selection of several stimuli that could potentially have been reinforcing, experimenters conducted two types of preference assessments per subject – multiple stimulus array without replacement, and forced-choice, using the same items. When the five most preferred stimuli were identified in each format, experimenters then verified the reinforcing power by making each contingent upon a task that the subjects had not yet learned. Results will be presented in terms of duration of each procedure and to what extent each preferred stimulus functioned as a positive reinforcer. |
|
| |