|
| Effects of Access to Stimuli During Stimulus Preference Assessments |
| Sunday, May 29, 2005 |
| 10:30 AM–11:50 AM |
| Stevens 1 (Lower Level) |
| Area: DDA; Domain: Applied Research |
| Chair: Myrna E. Libby (New England Center for Children) |
| CE Instructor: Myrna E. Libby, Ph.D. |
| Abstract: The four papers in this symposium discuss refinements in preference assessments for participants with developmental disabilities and autism. Articles present recent research regarding the impact of access to stimuli during systematic preference assessments on preference and reinforcer assessment results. The first paper compared preference and reinforcer assessments across two conditions (a vocal only condition and a vocal plus tangible condition). Reinforcer assessments indicated that the verbal plus tangible assessment more accurately identified reinforcers than the verbal assessment. In the second study, tangible, pictorial with access, and pictorial without access paired-stimulus preference assessments were conducted with 5 individuals with developmental disabilities. Although the tangible and pictorial with access assessments generated similar preference hierarchies, the pictorial without access assessment generated different preference hierarchies for some participants. The third paper investigated the effect of frequency of access during preference assessments on subsequent reinforcer assessments. Results suggested that the limited number of stimulus pairings in a typical paired-stimulus assessment might lead to inconsistent results in subsequent reinforcer assessments. The fourth presentation studied the effects of duration of access to the stimuli used in preference assessments on the outcome of reinforcer assessments; results suggested that duration measures were better predictors of preference than selection measures. |
| |
| Comparison of Verbal Preference Assessments in the Presence and Absence of the Actual Stimuli |
| CINDY T. TERLONGE (Louisiana State University), David E. Kuhn (Johns Hopkins University), Iser Guillermo DeLeon (Johns Hopkins University) |
| Abstract: Stimulus preference assessments for individuals with developmental disabilities typically involve offering choices among tangible stimuli and providing immediate access to the chosen stimuli. Certain stimuli and activities have generally been excluded from preference assessment research because they are difficult to present in tangible form and often cannot be conveniently delivered immediately after a selection response. Researchers have explored the utility of presenting choices verbally, thereby obviating the need to present the choices in tangible form. However, these studies have nonetheless used easily presented items and/or have delivered them following selections, calling into question the generality of these procedures for use with stimuli that cannot be presented in this fashion. The current study compared preference assessment results for 3 participants in which either (a) the stimuli were presented and selections were made verbally, or (b) the stimuli were presented both verbally and in tangible form. Reinforcer assessments were conducted to test contradictory predictions of reinforcer efficacy made by the two methods. Comparisons between the two assessments yielded mixed correspondence across participants. Reinforcer assessment results suggested that the verbal plus tangible stimulus preference assessment more accurately predicted reinforcer strength, particularly with regard to non-tangible stimuli. |
| |
| The Effect of Differential Consequences on Pictorial Preference Assessment Outcomes |
| MARK P. GROSKREUTZ (New England Center for Children), Richard B. Graff (New England Center for Children), Kelly K. Collins (New England Center for Children), Nicholas Chappell (New England Center for Children) |
| Abstract: Tangible, pictorial with access, and pictorial without access paired-stimulus preference assessments were compared with 5 individuals with developmental disabilities. During tangible (A) and pictorial with access preference assessments (B), the participant gained access to the stimulus approached or touched; during pictorial without access preference assessments (C), touching a photograph did not lead to the corresponding stimulus being delivered. In Phase 1, short blocks of trials of each assessment type were alternated. Percentages of approach responses were calculated, and preference hierarchies were generated for each assessment. Results indicated that all 3 assessments yielded similar preference hierarchies for all participants. Reinforcer assessments verified that items identified as highly preferred functioned as reinforcers for all participants. In Phase 2, all trials of the pictorial without access assessment were conducted first, followed by the tangible and pictorial with access assessments (2 participants experienced the assessments in CAB order, while the other 3 participants experienced the assessments in CBA order). Results of Phase 2 indicated that the 3 assessments yielded similar preference hierarchies for only 2 of 5 participants. Interobserver agreement data were collected in over 50% of preference and reinforcer assessment sessions and was above 99% for all participants. |
| |
| Some Anomalous Findings from Paired-Stimulus Preference Assessments |
| LEAH KOEHLER (University of Florida), Liming Zhou (University of Florida), Brian A. Iwata (University of Florida), Natalie Rolider (University of Florida), Sarah E. Bloom (University of Florida) |
| Abstract: This study presents some unusual findings from preference assessments. The paired-stimulus assessment is a commonly used method for developing rank-ordered preference hierarchies. Although results of previous studies have shown that outcomes of this assessment accurately predict preference for high- versus low-ranked stimuli under a concurrent-reinforcement arrangement, there have been a few notable exceptions (e.g., Fisher et al., 1992; Roscoe, Iwata, & Kahng, 1999) in which individuals failed to show consistent preference for the high-ranked item. The reason for these anomalous findings is unclear but may be due to the fact that a given pair of items is presented only once or twice during assessment, resulting in a limited sample. We first conducted typical preference assessments for 30 individuals, in which items (9 or 16) were presented in pairs (each item was paired with every other item once or twice). We subsequently presented the highest and lowest ranked items repeatedly for 50 trials. Results indicated that, although the majority of participants showed consistent preference for the high-ranked stimulus, a number of the participants showed no preference. These findings suggest that the limited number of pairings in typical paired-stimulus preference assessments may lead to inconsistent results during subsequent tests for reinforcement effects. |
| |
| Evaluation of Duration-Based Procedures for Assessing Leisure Item Preference |
| JODY M. STEINHILBER (New England Center for Children), Cammarie Johnson (New England Center for Children) |
| Abstract: The predictive value of selection- and duration-based measures of preference was evaluated. Two different types of MSWO preference assessments were conducted. In one MSWO condition (short), selected items were available for a brief duration (15 s); in the other MSWO condition (long), selected items were available for up to 15 min. Between 4 and 7 sessions of each condition were conducted using a multi-element design. Selection measures given the two assessment contexts yielded a difference of two or more rank orders for 2 or more stimuli for 2 of 3 participants. The duration measure yielded a difference of two or more rank orders relative to the selection measure (short MSWO) for 2 or more stimuli for 2 participants. Stimuli with the greatest rank order difference given selection and duration-based measures were then presented in a concurrent chain procedure for 2 participants. Comparisons of a higher preference stimulus given the selection measure (SHP) and the duration measure (DHP) were made. Results suggested that duration measures were better predictors of preference. Results are discussed in terms of the importance of context and dependent measure used in preference assessments. |
|
| |