reinforcer preference assessment: a useful tool for the school psychologist samuel thompson, m.ed.,...
TRANSCRIPT
Reinforcer Preference Assessment:A useful tool for the School Psychologist
Samuel Thompson, M.Ed., LSSPTexas Tech University School Psychology SpecializationSELCO SSA
Brook Roberts, M.A., LSSPSELCO SSA
INTRODUCTION
Reinforcer: Any stimuli that, when presented, increases the future frequency of the behavior that immediately precedes it.
In schools, positive reinforcement is considered the cornerstone of effective behavior change and management.
Positive reinforcement is impossible if the stimulus selected to serve as a reinforcer is not actually reinforcing to the student.
INTRODUCTION
School Psychologists are frequent behavioral consultants Last line of defense
When bringing in outside consultants, time is money
Special Education directors will be happy with any steps the School Psychologist can take in order to save time with the consultant The first step is typically a reinforcer preference
assessment
INTRODUCTION
What students are we talking about? Those requiring substantial behavioral support Any student exhibiting aggression or property
destruction Students with frequent BIP modifications or related
manifestation determination reviews Students who seem to demonstrate no clear preference
INTRODUCTION
Verbal Nomination RAISD “I know he likes this…”
Free Operant Preference Assessment Tangibles and activities
Multiple Stimulus without Replacement Edibles and (maybe) tangibles
VERBAL NOMINATION
History One of the earliest forms of preference assessment was
to simply ask the student
Application Can be used with caregivers, teachers, or child When time is limited To have a starting point and to also begin to eliminate
items which may not be reinforcing
VERBAL NOMINATION
Strengths/Weaknesses Self-report may not accurately identify reinforcers in some
cases when directly observed• (Northup et al., 1996)
Caregiver report is frequently ineffective at reliably identifying reinforcers
• (Windsor , Piche, & Locke, 1994)
Teacher and caregiver report, when incorporated with other direct assessment procedures, may more effectively identify reinforcers than either of the two in isolation
• (Cote et al., 2007)
VERBAL NOMINATION
Strengths and Weaknesses (cont) A reinforcer chosen by the individual receiving it rather than by
someone else may be more effective• (Fisher et al.,1996; Lerman et al., 1997; Thompson, Fisher, & Contrucci, 1998)
Self-nomination of preference may not match observed preferences
Self-nomination is limited to individuals who possess sufficient expressive and receptive language skills
ConsiderationsStudents’ level of functioning
Verbal abilities
Cognitive abilities
Use pictures when needed
VERBAL NOMINATION
Reinforcer Assessment for Individuals with Severe Disabilities - (RAISD; Fisher et al., 1996)
Generates a list of potential reinforcers from the visual, audible, olfactory, edible, social, and tactile domains
Rank orders the stimuli from most to least preferred based on predictions of child preference
When information yielded from these methods does not appear to change behavior, other methods of reinforcer assessment may be required.
VERBAL NOMINATION
Other Verbal Nomination Instruments School Reinforcement Survey Schedule
• (Holmes, Cautela, Simpson, Motes, & Gold, 1998)
Forced Choice Reinforcement Survey • (Cartwright & Cartwright, 1970)
• Presentation of limited choices will prevent unrealistic selections (such as iPhones and trips to Cancun)
FREE OPERANT PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT
History Developed a procedure in which participants had
continuous access to an array of stimuli for 5 minutes.• (Roane et al.,1998)
Participants were free to interact with the stimulus(i) of their choosing at any time throughout the assessment, and no stimuli were withdrawn from the participants
FREE OPERANT PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT
Application Provide non-contingent access to an array of stimuli that
may or may not function as reinforcers Operationally define “interaction” Record total duration of interaction with each object or
percentage of intervals child interacted with object Method to assess tangible and activity reinforcers “Today, you get to play with these toys. When I say “go”,
play with the toys you would like to play with.”
FREE OPERANT PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT
Strengths/Weaknesses Length of assessment is shorter than other methods Displayed fewer problem behaviors during assessment May not get a hierarchy/ranking of preferred items
Data Collection: % of intervals
Free Operant Assessment Data Sheet
Results from journal article by Sautter, LeBlanc, & Gillett, 2008:
MSWO
Multiple Stimulus Without Replacement
-(DeLeon & Iwata,1996)
Typically referred to as an MSWO
Uses verbal nomination results
Developed in contrast to a forced choice preference assessment or a multiple stimulus with replacement
-Creates a hierarchy, discrete rankingsHierarchy useful for more complicated interventions that utilize delayed reinforcement schedules
MSWO
Application Student seemingly “bounces around” from one reinforcer
to another Unpredictable preference Any time edibles are approved for programming 3-5 trials are needed
MSWO
Steps in application:
1. Obtain reinforcers
2. Create standardized quantities
3. Randomize data sheet
4. Allow for tact/exposure
5. “Okay, pick one…”
MSWO
Data sheet procedures: Randomize each stimuli One presenter/administrator, one data collector
Pitfalls: Student grabs for more than one – Block and reset the
trial Saving the best for last
CONCLUSION
General recommendations: Ensure standardization Be prepared for problem behavior
Threats to validity Mixing Edibles and Tangibles/Activities
• (DeLeon et al., 1997)
Data collection/presentation Visually inspect your data Stop when data is stable
REFERENCES
Cartwright, C. A., & Cartwright, G. P. (1970). Determining the motivational systems of individual children. Teaching Exceptional Children, 2(3), 143-149.
Cautela, J., Cautela, J., & Esonis, S. (1983). Forms for behavior analysis with children. Champaign, IL: Research Press.
Cote, C.A., Thompson, R.H., Hanley, G.P., & McKerchar, P.M. (2007). Teacher report and direct assessment of preferences for identifying reinforcers for young children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 157-166.
DeLeon, I.G., & Iwata, B.A. (1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 519-532.
DeLeon, I.G., Iwata, B.A., Goh, H.L., & Worsdell, A.S. (1997). Emergence of reinforcer preference as a function of schedule requirements and stimulus similarity. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 439-449
Fisher, W.W., Piazza, C.C., Bowman, L.G., & Amari, A. (1996). Integrating caregiver report with a systematic choice assessment. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 101, 15-25.
Fisher, W., Thompson, R., Piazza, C., Crosland, K., & Gotjen, D. (1997). On the relative reinforcing effects of choice and differential consequences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 423-438.
Lerman, D., Iwata, B., Rainville, B., Adelinis, J., Crosland, K., & Kogan, J. (1997). Effects of reinforcement choice on task responding in individuals with developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 411-422.
Northup, J., George, T., Jones, K., Broussard, C., & Vollmer, T.R. (1996). A comparison of reinforcer assessment methods: The utility of verbal and pictorial choice procedures. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 201-212.
Roane, H.S., Vollmer, T.R., Ringdahl, J.E., & Marcus, B.A. (1998). Evaluation of a brief stimulus preference assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 605-620.
Sautter, R. A., LeBlanc, L. A., & Gillett, J. N. (2008). Using free operant preference assessments to select toys for free play between children with autism and siblings. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 2(1), 17-27.
Thompson, R., Fisher, W., & Contrucci, S. (1998). Evaluating the reinforcing effects of choice in comparison to reinforcement rate. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 19, 181-187.
Windsor, J., Piche, L.M., & Locke, P.A. (1994). Preference testing: A comparison of two presentation methods. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 15, 439-455.