preference assessments: why they are important & how to do ...€¦ · why they are important...

10/23/2014

1

Preference Assessments:Why They are Important & How

to do Them

Ruth M. DeBar, Ph.D., BCBA-D

Objectives• Identify reasons it is important to assess

preference

• To distinguish between different types of preference assessments and different procedures for implementing each

• To identify variables to consider

• Extensions of preference

Challenges Assessing Preference for Learners with ASD

• Communication deficits

• May have restricted interests

‐Piazza, Fisher, Bowman & Blakey-Smith (1999)

• May be exposed environment which limits familiarity with novel items

10/23/2014

2

Why is Preference of ReinforcersImportant for Learners with ASD?

• The effectiveness of skill acquisition andbehavior reduction programs depend theidentification and the implementation of

potent reinforcers!

Preference Assessments

• Indirect– Surveys & Interviews

• Direct– Preference Directly measured– Examples:

• Single-stimulus, paired-preference, MSWO, duration-based

Why not simply ask?

• Identifying commonly accessed items• Overlook idiosyncratic preferences• Incorrect selection• Characteristics that impede accuracy of

respondents reporting

Canella-Malone, Sabielny, Jimenez, & Miller (2013)

10/23/2014

3

Preference Assessments: Indirect

10/23/2014

4

Fisher, Piazza, Bowman, & Amari (1996)

Indirect Preference Assessments

• Examples: Interviews & surveys– Pros

• Easy & quicky q– Cons

• Not as accurate as empirical preference assessments

Direct Assessments in Identifying Stimulus Preference

• Single-stimulus

• Paired Stimulus

• Multiple Stimulus Without Replacement (MSWO)Replacement (MSWO)

• Duration-based preference assessment

• Free-operant

10/23/2014

5

Single-stimulus Assessment

• In general,– Identify items to be assessed– Present one item at a time

Allo learner 5 seconds to approach item– Allow learner 5 seconds to approach item– If no approach for the 1st presentation, record N0

Approach on data sheet, represent, and prompt engagement for 5 seconds

– If learner approaches item after representing it, permit engagement

Single-stimulus Assessment

• In general,– If no approach for the 2nd presentation, record

No Approach on data sheet and move onto next trial

– If learner emits any refusal behavior or problem upon presentation of stimulus, remove item and discontinue its use

Single-stimulus PresentationItem Response Notes

Fritos C

Chip C

Cookie CCookie C

Ritz C

Water C

10/23/2014

6

Single-stimulus presentation

• Benefits:– Quick & easy– Good method to introduce novel stimuli– Does not require a scanning repertoire nor choiceDoes not require a scanning repertoire nor choice

behavior

• Limitations:– May overestimate preference– Does not generate a hierarchy of preference

Paired- Stimulus Preference Assessment

• Gather your data sheet and your items• Present both items simultaneously and state

“Pick one.” O l h l t d it• Once your learner has selected an item, allow 10-30 seconds to engage with it.

Paired-Stimulus Preference Assessment

• If your learner does not make a response,– represent each item singly for 5 seconds

h i– Represent choice– If your learner selects 1 of the 2, allow engagement

10/23/2014

7


• If your learners reaches for both items, block access and represent trial

• Run no more than 20 25 trials at a time• Run no more than 20-25 trials at a time

• Discontinue if your learner makes No Response across 3 consecutive trials

Paired Preference Assessment

Stimuli

1. Robot

2. Drum

3. Ball Toy

4. Hurricane

5 I d

Trial Left Right NR (No-response) or R (Refusal)

1 1 2

2 3 4

3 5 6

4 7 8

5 2 3

6 4 55. Ipad

6. Musical book

7. See n say

8. Playdough

6 4 5

7 8 2

8 6 7

9 3 1

10 4 2


40

50

60

70

80

90

100

ent Selected

0

10

20

30

40

Ipad Water tube Robot Drum

Perce

10/23/2014

8


– Benefits:

• More accurate estimate of preference than Single-stimulus preference assessment

• Generates a hierarchy of preference

– Limitations:

• Time consuming

• Requires that an item be removed after presentation, which can be problematic

Multiple Stimulus Without Replacement (MSWO)

• General procedures:– Sit across the learner– Present 5-7 items (Place middle or 4th item in front

of the learner)of the learner)– Say “Pick one,” or “Choose”

MSWO– If participant:

• Selects: allow engagement for 10-30 sec or until consumed

• Approached mores than 1 item, block

Oth i–Otherwise,• Record selection and systematically shift items• Repeat until all items selected • If no items are selected, represent opportunity• If no selection for 2 consecutive trials, discontinue. • Repeat for 3- 7 sessions

10/23/2014

9

MSWO1. Turtle Shape

Sorter2. Don’t Break the

Ice3. Farm House 4. Work Bench

5. Race Track

Session 1 Item selected Notes: Order:1-2-3-4-5

Trial 1 Don’t Break the Ice

Trial 2 Work Bench

Trial 3 Turtle

Trial 4 Farm House

Trial 5 Race Track

Data Calculation

The number of times selected/the number of times the item was presented

Item Formula % Approached

Don’t break the Ice 1/1 100%

• Average across all sessions

Workbench and hammer

1/2 50%

Turtle shape sorter 1/3 33%

Race track 1/4 25%

Results

60%

80%

100%

elected

0%

20%

40%

Don’t break the Ice

Workbench and hammer

Turtle shape sorter

Race track

Percen

t Se

Items

10/23/2014

10

MSWO– Benefits:

• More accurate than Single-stimulus preference assessment

• Easier to and less time consuming than paired-preference assessment

– Limitations:Limitations:• Session behavior is important:

– Scanning

– Attending

– Leaving item on table between trials

Single-stimulus engagement

• Present one item at a time• Engagement with item is measured for a

pre-determined interval– 2 min (e.g., DeLeon, Iwata, Conners, Wallace, 1999)

• Calculate the percent engagement– Total number of seconds engaged/total number

of seconds with the item

Results

60

80

100

Engaged

0

20

40

Alligator Xylophone Electronic Drum

Percen

t E

10/23/2014

11


• Benefits:– Take less time to identify preferred stimuli– Can include open-ended activities– May be best for learners who have deficits in

choice making behavior


• Limitations:– Some participants may approach/engage with

all itemsLi i d ili f dibl– Limited utility for edibles

Free-operant Preference Assessment

• Allow learner to explore items within an environment

• Teacher/clinician does not present and/or manipulate presentation of materialsmanipulate presentation of materials

• Record duration and frequency of which items/activities engaged

10/23/2014

12


350400450500550600

in Secon

ds

050

100150200250300

Trampoline Figurines Books

Total D

uration


• Quick & easy• Not withholding, removing, nor manipulating

stimuli to be assessed

When Should Preferences be Conducted?

• Should be a standard part of an individual’s program– Minimally conducted annuallyy y– Mini-assessments can be conducted daily☺

• More often:– If student has a small pool of reinforcers– Lack of progress with skill acquisition

programs

10/23/2014

13

Choice Books

Prior to beginning. . . .

• Consider the type most appropriate for your learner

• Gather information G h S i li• Gather Stimuli

• Conduct your preference assessment• Calculate results

Clinical guidelines. . .

Can the student choose?

NO,Single-stimulus

assessmentassess e t

Yes,Paired-stimulus

MSWO

10/23/2014

14


Does the student have pic to

object/object to i hi ?

NO,Must use

representative ipic matching? items

Yes,Picture format


Does the student Does the student have behavior

problems related to accessing

NO, Super! Life is good!

gto access gtangibles? Yes,

Paired-stimulus orMSWO not

appropriate. .use duration-based

assessments

Other considerations. .

Student grabs more than one

item?Student shows a

side bias?The student stops

responding?

Student has difficulty

returning item selected?

Student have physical

impairments?Keep categories

separate. .

10/23/2014

15

Terminology

• Reinforcer-A stimulus change that increases the future frequency of behavior that immediately precedes it.

(Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007)

• Highly preferred stimuli-Stimuli approached or engaged most often.

Reinforcer Assessments

• Direct methods used to present a contingent stimulus on a simple, low effort response while measuring the effects on rate of responding

(Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007)

Preference for Social Consequences

• Rapid assessment to evaluate preference and reinforcing effectiveness of social reinforcers

• Includes a low effort, mastered response• Includes a control (no consequence)• Potential social reinforcer assessed 1 min

Smaby, MacDonald, Ahearn, & Dube (2007)

10/23/2014

16



Maintenance of Social Consequences1 week 2 weeks 3 weeks

10/23/2014

17

Preferred Social Consequences• Advantages

– Great way to assess sensitivity to social consequences

– Simultaneously identified preference and reinforcing effectsreinforcing effects

– It is quick Limitations:

– Its quick– Additional research

Choice is Clinically Important

• “Choice is a central principle in the delivery of ethical behavioral services. . . .The point is . . .a client must have

-Martinez-Diaz, Freeman, Nomand, & Heron (2007)

alternatives, must be able to perform each alternative, and must be able to experience the natural consequence of the chosen alternative.” (p.674)

Clinical Applications of Choice

Research supports that individuals can indicate preference when presented with choice-making opportunities– Interventions– Selection of AAC devices – Leisure activities – Instructional activities– Vocational tasks

10/23/2014

18

In closing. . .• Assessing preference is paramount to effective

programing

• Varies preference assessment methods exist

• Type of assessment type should be client-driven

• Preference and choice can be utilized in practical ways

In closing. . .

• Consider the role of motivating operations, variety, and shifts over time

Addi i l h b i f li i l• Additional research to better inform clinical practice: – Social reinforers– Choice of interventions and other areas

Thank you for your attention!

• Any further questions?

• Email:

• [email protected]

• Special thank you to , future behavior analysts☺

10/23/2014

19

References

• Canella-Malone, H.I., DeBar, R.M., Sigafoos, J. (2009). An examination of preference for augmentative and alternative communication devices

• With Two Boys With Significant Intellectual Disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 4, 262--273• Cannella-Malone, H. I., Sabielny, L. S., Jimenez, E. D., & Miller, M. M. (2013). Pick one! Conducting preference assessments with

students with significant disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45, 16-23.• Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall. • DeLeon, I.G., & Iwata, B. A.(1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format reinforcer preferences assessment.• Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 519-532. f pp y• Fisher, W., & Mazur, J.E. (1997). Basic and applied research on choice responding. . Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 387-410.• Fisher, W., Piazza, C.C., Bowman, L.G., Hagopian, L.P., Owens, J.C., & Slevin, I. (1992). A comparison of two approaches for identifying

reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25,491-498 • Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & Lindberg, J. S. (1999). Analysis of activity preferences as a function of differential consequences.

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 419–435.• Jenson, W.R., Rhode, G., Reavis, H.K. (1994). The tough kid tool box. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

References

• Kang, S., Lang, R. B., O’Reilly, M. F., Davis, T. N., Machalicek, W., Rispoli, M. J., & Chan J. M.(2010).Problem behavior during preference assessments: An empirical analysis and practical recommendations. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 137-141.

• Martinez-Diaz, J.A., Freeman, T.R., Normand, M., & Heron, T.E. (2007). Ethical considerations for behavior analysts. Invited Chapter in J.O. Cooper, T.E. Heron, and W.L. Heward, Applied Behavior Analysis, Second Edition. Merrill/Prentice Hall.

• Pace, G.M., Ivancic, M.T., Edwards, G.L., Iwata, & Page, T.J. (1985). Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 249-255.

• Piazza, C.C., Fisher, W.W., Bowman, L.G., Blakely-Smith, A. (1999). Identifying and using reinforcers using choice paradigms. In P.M. Ghezzi, W.L. Williams, J.E. Carr(Eds.), Autism:Behavior Analytic Perspectives (pp. 102-108). Reno, NV: Context Press.

• Rosales-Ruiz, J., & Baer, D. M. (1997). Behavioral cusps: A developmental and pragmatic concept for behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 533-544

• Sigafoos, J., O’Reilly, M., Ganz, J.B., Lancioni, G.E., & Schlosser, R.W. (2005). Supported self-determination in AAC interventions by assessing preference for communication devices. Technology and Disability, 17,1-11.

• Smaby, K., MacDonald, R.P.F., Ahearn, W.H., & Dube, W.V. (2007). Assessment protocol for identifying preferred social consequences. Behavioral Interventions, 22, 311-318.

• Soto, G., Belfoire, P.J., Schlosser, C.H., & Haynes, C. (1993). Teaching specific requests: A comparative analysis of skill acquisition and preference using two augmentative and alternative communication aids. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 28, 169-178.

• Virues-ortega, J., Pritchard, K., Grant, R.L., North, S., Hurtado-parrado, C., Lee, M.S.H., Temple, B., Julio, F., Yu, C.T (2014). Clinical decision making and preference assessment for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. AmericalJounrla on Intellectual Devleopmental Disabilities, 119, 151-70. doi: 10.1352/1944-7558-119.2.151.

•

preference assessments: why they are important & how to do ...€¦ · why they are important...

Documents