Association for Behavior Analysis International

Clinicians regularly use preference and reinforcer assessments to identify effective reinforcers. Typically measurement of stimuli occurs subsequent to the assessment of preferences to confirm putative reinforcers. The types of preference assessment and tests of reinforcing efficacy used vary widely and usually to take into account ecological fit. Consideration of the assessment and measurement of effects of different types of stimuli must be taken. This symposium includes four presentations that report on multiple types of methods to assess preference and measure the effects of reinforcers, which advance methods in preference assessment and reinforcer measurement . Two studies involved the use of video-based stimuli to assess preference in paired-choice and multiple stimulus without replacement preference assessments. One study compared two different types of preference assessments (i.e, . multiple stimulus without replacement and response restriction). In two studies researchers examined the reinforcing effects using a progressive-ratio schedule, while in a different study researchers

Scientists, Students, practitioners

Clinicians regularly use preference and reinforcer assessments to identify effective reinforcers. Research on preference assessments for social interactions has largely used pictorial depictions of social stimuli (Kelly, Roscoe, Hanley, & Schlichenmeyer, 2014; Lang et al., 2014). However, social stimuli are dynamic and the use of videos may better portray the nuances of social stimuli (Synder, Higbee, & Dayton, 2012). Adolescents diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder participated in the current study. An indirect assessment was initially conducted to identify social stimuli for each participant. Then the experimenters evaluated the usefulness of a video-based preference assessment to identify high- and low- preference of social stimuli. A video-based, paired-choice preference assessment was conducted in which two videos of different social stimuli were played simultaneously to identify preference of stimuli. Finally a reinforcer assessment was conducted to identify if the social stimuli functioned as a reinforcer. The results indicated that the video-based preference assessment was effective in identifying preference for social reinforcers.

Using highly preferred items that function as reinforcers is a critical component of treatment packages for children with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). To address limitations of more popular preference-assessment formats, we extended the research on stimulus preference assessments by replicating the response-restriction (RR) preference assessment and comparing results in terms of preference hierarchies to those from free-operant and multiple stimulus without replacement (MSWO) formats with six children with 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 as well as areas for future research.

Recent research suggests benefits of the presence of pets in social responding of children with ASD. It follows, pets may be preferred and valuable as rewards in treatments for these children. However, preference for animals, and contingent access to animals to increase desired responding has not been clearly demonstrated in research. This study aimed to investigate preference for, and rewarding efficacy of a typical animal pet (i.e., dog) in children with ASD. We conducted in vivo and video-based paired-preference assessments including a dog. We subsequently conducted reinforcer assessments using progressive ratio schedules. Results of this study revealed in vivo and video-based preference assessment outcomes highly correlated for 2 of 3 participants. Outcomes of reinforcer assessment revealed access to a dog served as a reinforcer. However, relative reinforcing efficacy of the dog was not as strong as other social interactions for 1 of 3 participants.