|
| Comparisons of Stimulus Preference Assessment Across Multiple Clinical Contexts |
| Saturday, May 29, 2010 |
| 1:00 PM–2:20 PM |
| 217C (CC) |
| Area: DDA; Domain: Applied Behavior Analysis |
| Chair: Megan Rae Heinicke (Auburn University) |
| Abstract: Four stimulus preference assessment comparison studies across multiple clinical contexts will be discussed. The first study evaluated the effects of different item access durations on preference stability for activities and on-task behavior for typically developing preschoolers. The authors found preferences to be stable across 4-9 months and access duration to be idiosyncratic across participants. The second study compared direct, single-stimulus, and paired-stimulus preference assessment procedures for individuals with multiple disabilities and minimal physical movements and found direct preference assessment to be the most effective. The third study compared multiple-stimulus without replacement and paired-stimulus preference assessment procedures for adults with developmental disabilities. Using a post-hoc analysis, the authors found differing relations between the decreasing number of items across trials in the multiple-stimulus arrangement and the concordance between both preference assessment procedures. Finally, the fourth study verified the accuracy of three different preference assessment modalities (i.e., tangible, pictorial, verbal) for six adults with acquired brain injury using reinforcer assessments with progressive-ratio procedures. The authors demonstrated that each modality made valid predictions of food items that would function as reinforcers for rehabilitation programming. |
| |
| An Evaluation of the Effects of Reinforcer Magnitude on Preference and On-Task Behavior |
| BROOKE ASHLEY JONES (University of Kansas), Claudia L. Dozier (University of Kansas), Pamela L. Neidert (University of Kansas) |
| Abstract: Many methods of assessing preference have been described and shown to be accurate predictors of stimuli that will function as reinforcers. Stimulus characteristics such as the magnitude of a stimulus may determine its effectiveness as a reinforcer (Steinhilber & Johnson, 2007; Trosclair-Lasserre, Lerman, Call, Addison, & Kodak, 2008). The purpose of the current study is to determine the extent to which duration of item access (i.e., reinforcer magnitude) affects (a) preference for various activities for typical, preschool children and (b) on-task pre-academic behavior displayed by these children. In Study 1, preference assessments are conducted in which item access time is 30 seconds and 5 minutes, and these preference assessments are repeated after 4-9 months to determine stability in preference across access times and over time. Results suggest that 11 of 12 children’s preferences remained relatively stable across magnitude (i.e., 30 seconds and 5 minutes) and time (i.e., 4-9 months). In Study 2, reinforcer assessments are conducted in which low- and high- magnitude access to highly preferred items is contingent upon duration of on-task behavior during a 5-minute task period. Preliminary results of Study 2 suggest that the effects of magnitude on on-task behavior are idiosyncratic. |
| |
| Can Preference Assessment Identify Reinforcers for Individuals With Multiple Disabilities and Minimal Physical Movement? |
| MAY S. LEE (University of Manitoba), C.T. Yu (St. Amant Research Centre, the University of Manitoba), Toby L. Martin (St. Amant Research Centre, University of Manitoba), Garry L. Martin (University of Manitoba) |
| Abstract: Direct stimulus preference assessment is usually effective in identifying reinforcers for individuals with developmental disabilities. However, its effectiveness in identifying reinforcers for individuals with multiple disabilities and minimal physical movement is less consistent (Ivancic & Bailey, 1996). This study compared direct reinforcer assessment, and single- and paired-stimulus preference assessments with five participants with developmental disabilities, three of whom met the threshold for minimal movement based on direct observations. We first identified a strong and a weak reinforcer for each participant during direct reinforcer assessments in an ABAB design. Then we assessed each participant’s preference for the strong and weak reinforcers using single- and paired-stimulus preference assessments. For the two nonminimal movement participants, none showed a clear preference for either reinforcer during the single-stimulus assessment, but both participants showed a preference for the strong reinforcer during the paired-stimulus assessment. These results are consistent with previous research. For the three minimal movement participants, none showed a clear preference for either reinforcer during the single-stimulus assessment, and only one showed a preference for the strong reinforcer during the paired-stimulus assessment. These results suggest that direct reinforcer assessment should be used to identify reinforcers for individuals with multiple disabilities and minimal physical movement. |
| |
| Evaluation of Multiple-Stimulus Preference Assessment With Adults with Developmental Disabilities |
| CARLY E. THIESSEN (St. Amant Research Centre, the University of Manitoba), Gareth Davies (St. Amant Research Centre, the University of Manitoba), C.T. Yu (St. Amant Research Centre, the University of Manitoba), Toby L. Martin (St. Amant Research Centre, University of Manitoba), Garry L. Martin (St. Amant Research Centre, the University of Manitoba) |
| Abstract: Stimulus preference assessment is an important component of many training programs for individuals with developmental disabilities because it can be used to identify reinforcers. We compared multiple-stimulus without replacement (MSWO) and paired-stimulus (PS) procedures to assess stimulus preferences of nine adults with developmental disabilities. Preferences for six food stimuli were assessed using the PS and the MSWO procedures. Stimulus preference rankings obtained from the procedures were positively correlated for all participants (mean tau = .72, range .41 to 1). However, four participants did not select the most-preferred stimuli identified by the PS assessments as their most-preferred stimuli during the MSWO assessments. A post hoc analysis of participants’ data revealed that preferred-stimulus selection percentages for these participants generally increased during MSWO as the number of stimuli decreased across trials. For the five participants who selected the same stimuli as their most-preferred in both procedures, their preferred-stimulus selection percentages generally declined during MSWO as the number of stimuli decreased across trials. The effects of number of stimuli during MSWO trials and suggestions for future research are discussed. |
| |
| Assessing Preferences of Individuals with Acquired Brain Injury Using Alternative Stimulus Modalities |
| MEGAN RAE HEINICKE (Auburn University), Dixie Eastridge (Learning Services NeuroBehavioral Institute of Colorado), Jeff Kupfer (Learning Services NeuroBehavioral Institute of Colorado), Michael P. Mozzoni (Learning Services NeuroBehavioral Institute of Colorado), James E. Carr (Auburn University) |
| Abstract: Using stimulus preference assessments to identify reinforcers to use in rehabilitation programming for individuals with acquired brain injury (ABI) is of great importance. In ABI rehabilitation, many skills sets often need to be targeted in a short period of time as placement in rehabilitation settings is often limited. In addition, preferences are idiosyncratic and change over time. Thus, it is important to use efficient and accurate stimulus preference modalities. The current investigation evaluated three stimulus preference assessment modalities (i.e., tangible, pictorial, verbal) in a paired-stimulus arrangement (Fisher, Piazza, Bowman, Hagopian, Owens, & Slevin, 1992) to identify preferred foods with six adults with ABI. The most preferred item identified from each modality was then evaluated in a reinforcer assessment using a progressive-ratio procedure (Roane, Lerman, & Vorndran, 2001). Each modality identified a different food item that had the highest selection percentage for three participants while the remaining three participants had highly consistent preference assessment results. However, results of all subsequent reinforcer assessments demonstrated that all modalities made valid predictions of foods that would function as reinforcers for acquisition programming. |
|
| |