etadd_46(4) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Predictions, prescriptions, and practice (pp. 188– 205). Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum Publishers. Martin, J. E., Woods, L.L., Sylvester, L., & Gardner, J. E. (2006). A challenge to self-determination: Disagreement between the vocational choices made by individuals with severe disabilities and their caregivers. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30, 41–43. Mithaug, D. E. (1993). Self-regulation theory: How optimal adjustment maximizes gain. Westport, CT: Pager. Mithaug, D. E. (1996). Equal opportunity theory. London: Sage. Mithaug, D.E. (1998). Your right, my obligation. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 23, 147–153. Mithaug, D. E. (2005). On persistent pursuits of self-interest. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30, 163–167. Mithaug, D. E., Mithaug, D. K., Agran, M., Martin, J. E., & Wehmeyer, M. (2003). Self-determined learning theory: Construction, verification, and evaluation. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Neely-Barnes, S., Marcenko, M., & Weber, L. (2008). Does choice influence quality of life for people with mild intellectual disabilities? Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, <strong>46</strong>, 12–26. Powers, L. (2005). Self-determination by individuals with severe disabilities: Limitations or excuses. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30, 168–172. Schloss, P., Alper, S., & Jayne, D. (1993). Self-determination for persons with disabilities: Choice, risk, and dignity. Exceptional Children, 60, 215–225. Shevin, M., & Klein, N. K. (1984). The importance of choice making skills as an intervention for problem behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9, 159–166. Stancliffe, R. J. (1995). Assessing opportunities for choice making: A comparison of self- and staff reports. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 99, 418–429. Stancliffe, R. J. (2000). Proxy respondents and quality of life. Evaluation and Program Planning, 23, 89–93. Stancliffe, R. J., & Abery, B. H. (1997). Longitudinal study of deinstitutionalization and the exercise of choice. Mental Retardation, 35, 159–169. Stancliffe, R. J., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (1995). Variability in the variability of choice to adults with mental retardation. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 5, 319–328. Stock, S. E., Davies, D. K., Secor, R. R., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2003). Self-directed career preference selection for individuals with intellectual disabilities: Using computer technology to enhance selfdetermination. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 19, 95–103. Storey, K. (2005). Informed choice: The catch-22 of self-determination. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30, 232–234. Ward, M. (2005). An historical perspective of selfdetermination in special education: Accomplishments and challenges. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities (RPSD), 30, 108–112. Wehmeyer, M. (1998). Self-determination and individuals with significant disabilities: Examining meanings and misinterpretations. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 23, 5–16. Wehmeyer, M. L. (2001). Self-determination and mental retardation. In L. M. Glidden (Ed.), International Review of Research in Mental Retardation (Vol. 24, pp. 1–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers. Wehmeyer, M. L. (2003). Self-determination, vocational rehabilitation, and workplace supports. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 19, 67–69. Wehmeyer, M., Agran, M., & Hughes, C. (1997). Teaching self-determination skills to students with disabilities: Basic skills for successful transition. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Wehmeyer, M. L., Agran, M., & Hughes, C. (2000). A national survey on teachers’ promotion of selfdetermination and student-directed learning. The Journal of Special Education, 34, 58–68. Wehmeyer, M., Agran, M., Palmer, S., Mithaug, D., Martin, J., & Hughes, C. (2007). Promoting selfdetermination and student-directed learning for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. New York: Guilford. Wehmeyer, M. L., & Metzler, C. (1995) How selfdetermined are people with mental retardation? The National Consumer Survey. Mental Retardation, 33, 111–119. Wehmeyer, M. L., & Palmer, S. (2003). Adult outcomes for students with cognitive disabilities three years after high school: The impact of selfdetermination. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 38, 131–144. Wehmeyer, M., & Schwartz, M. (1997). Self-determination and positive adult outcomes: A follow-up study of youth with mental retardation or learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 63, 245– 255. West, M. D., & Parent, W. 1992). Consumer choice and employment in supported employment. In P. Wehman, P. Sale, & W. Parent (Eds.), Supported employment: Strategies for integration of workers with disabilities (pp. 29–48. Stoneham, MA: Andover Medical Publishers. Received: 24 August 2010 Initial Acceptance: 21 October 2010 Final Acceptance: 7 January 2011 Choice Making / 575
Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 2011, <strong>46</strong>(4), 576-595 © <strong>Division</strong> on Autism and Developmental Disabilities Review of the Choice and Preference Assessment Literature for Individuals with Severe to Profound Disabilities Christopher A. Tullis, Helen I. Cannella-Malone, Abby R. Basbigill, Amanda Yeager, Courtney V. Fleming, Daniel Payne, and Pei-Fang Wu The Ohio State University Abstract: Since 2002, the body of literature examining choice interventions and preference assessments for individuals with severe to profound disabilities has grown substantially. This paper is an extension of the Lancioni, O’Reilly, & Emerson (1996) and Cannella, O’Reilly, & Lancioni (2005) papers and reviews 50 studies conducted between 2002 and 2010 that were divided into five categories: (a) effectiveness of various preference assessment formats and methodologies, (b) comparisons of specific components of preference assessments, (c) underlying mechanisms of preference, (d) effects of choice on behavior, and (e) staff and participant training. Findings from these studies support previous research findings in that choice was an effective intervention for changing behavior, reinforcers were identified for individuals with severe to profound disabilities using preference assessments, and participants were taught to make, and staff were trained to provide, choices. Other major findings highlight some mechanisms that underlie preference and provide insight into some nuances of the various preference assessment methodologies. The findings are discussed in terms of their implications on practice related to individuals with severe to profound disabilities and suggestions for future research are provided. Research has demonstrated that individuals with severe to profound disabilities can demonstrate clear preferences through methodologically rigorous assessments and can make choices that have resulted in increased appropriate behavior and decreased challenging behavior (e.g., Cannella, O’Reilly, & Lancioni, 2005; Lancioni, O’Reilly, & Emerson, 1996). Based on the available research, it appears that the provision of choice and identification of preferred stimuli among individuals with severe to profound disabilities is increasing, thus potentially increasing their overall quality of life. Although there appears to be a clear evidence-base supporting the use of preference assessments to identify reinforcers and choice interventions to change behavior, much of this research has been conducted by researchers rather than the direct-care providers (Cannella et al., 2005). Questions remain regard- Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Helen I. Cannella-Malone, A348 PAES Building, 305 W 17th Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210. Email: malone.175@osu.edu ing how these assessments and interventions should be implemented in home, school, and work settings by parents, teachers, and other care providers. It is also unclear if one method of assessing preference is more appropriate for a particular type of individual, how reinforcing items identified through a preference assessment might might be in various contexts, or if choice provision is meaningful in all contexts. To determine if these and other questions regarding choice interventions and preference assessment methodologies have been addressed, this paper will review studies that have examined such interventions and assessments with individuals who have severe to profound disabilities. It represents an extension of the Lancioni et al. (1996) and Cannella et al. (2005) papers as it includes studies published between 2002 and 2010. During this time period, 50 studies examined the effects of choice making and preference assessments for individuals with severe to profound disabilities. After providing an overview of the available research literature, this paper will discuss the literature in relation to the following ques- 576 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-December 2011
Page 1 and 2:
Education and Training in Autism an
Page 3 and 4:
March 2012 Manuscripts Accepted for
Page 5 and 6:
new line of research, the review ho
Page 7 and 8:
TABLE 1—(Continued) Overview of H
Page 9 and 10:
TABLE 1—(Continued) Overview of H
Page 11 and 12:
Figure 1. MP3 Player (Model: SM-320
Page 13 and 14:
Figure 3. Sony-Ericsson K800. Retri
Page 15 and 16:
computer with three middle school s
Page 17 and 18:
Figure 6. Video iPod. Apple, Inc. h
Page 19 and 20:
example, in contrast to previous st
Page 21 and 22:
using public transportation. Device
Page 23 and 24:
accessible software to increase ind
Page 25 and 26:
(14.3%), a unique curriculum (13.8%
Page 27 and 28:
TABLE 1 Student Characteristics Stu
Page 29 and 30:
eos” was highlighted. Students th
Page 31 and 32:
ment was 100% for baseline and main
Page 33 and 34:
Figure 3. Percentage of independent
Page 35 and 36:
how to program and operate the equi
Page 37 and 38:
Individuals with Disabilities Educa
Page 39 and 40:
Education and Training in Autism an
Page 41 and 42:
TABLE 1 Video Prompting Studies Con
Page 43 and 44:
TABLE 1—(Continued) Video Prompti
Page 45 and 46:
Length of video clips. Researchers
Page 47 and 48:
to learn three cooking tasks. Resul
Page 49 and 50: Van Laarhoven and Van Laarhoven-Mye
Page 51 and 52: Dogoe, M., & Banda, D. R. (2009). R
Page 53 and 54: Education and Training in Autism an
Page 55 and 56: TABLE 1 Summary of Demographic and
Page 57 and 58: TABLE 2 Summary of Outcome Variable
Page 59 and 60: with students in preschool (Akmanog
Page 61 and 62: with MoID acquiring some of their p
Page 63 and 64: Vocational task. To date one study
Page 65 and 66: ed; thereby adding to the amount of
Page 67 and 68: Retardation and Developmental Disab
Page 71 and 72: TABLE 1 Student Demographic Informa
Page 73 and 74: Figure 1. Example of the mini-poste
Page 75 and 76: Experimental Design This study empl
Page 77 and 78: intervention sessions was 75.55% de
Page 79 and 80: help continue maximum skill profici
Page 83 and 84: at the same time, or did not respon
Page 85 and 86: Figure 1. Correct responses for Joe
Page 87 and 88: sponses for each skill. No trends w
Page 89 and 90: then be used as a template for quic
Page 91 and 92: 2007). Choice making initiates the
Page 93 and 94: making choices is clearly not in th
Page 95 and 96: epeated until stable choice pattern
Page 97 and 98: transportation, commitment) to prov
Page 99: can be made. Last, because consumer
Page 103 and 104: TABLE 1 Studies Listed According to
Page 105 and 106: TABLE 1—(Continued) Studies Liste
Page 111 and 112: (i.e., MSW) and duration-based (i.e
Page 113 and 114: 2008), and increasing adaptive beha
Page 115 and 116: port difficulty implementing the in
Page 117 and 118: of a preferred item while continuin
Page 119 and 120: Kreiner, J., & Flexer, R. (2009). A
Page 123 and 124: autism on the CARS. Regarding socia
Page 125 and 126: other effect size measures and with
Page 127 and 128: quests during baseline sessions. Du
Page 129 and 130: ulation was generally clear and he
Page 131 and 132: communication training as a treatme
Page 133 and 134: encing allergy symptoms (one partic
Page 135 and 136: Assessments Preference assessment.
Page 137 and 138: Interobserver agreement. A second o
Page 139 and 140: challenging behavior in the presess
Page 141 and 142: tion of the preferred item signaled
Page 143 and 144: ior: An analysis of the literature.
Page 145 and 146: moderate intellectual disabilities
Page 147 and 148: Effects of the STAR intervention pr
Page 149 and 150: Copeland, S. R. (2002). See citatio
Page 151 and 152:
126. Ezell, D., & Klein, C. (2003).
Page 153 and 154:
computer-based instruction program.
Page 155 and 156:
sight words to students with mental
Page 157 and 158:
Mastropieri, M. A. (2009). See cita
Page 159 and 160:
262. Noyes, D. A., & Sax, C. L. (20
Page 161 and 162:
Rispoli, M. (2009). See citation #1
Page 163 and 164:
Sparks, S. (2010). See citation #87
Page 165 and 166:
Vlaskamp, C. (2008). See citation #
Page 167 and 168:
INDEX—VOLUME 46,
Page 169 and 170:
Runes, Sandra. See Hausmann-Stabile
Page 171 and 172:
Review of video prompting studies w
Page 173 and 174:
Look! I'm in College! DVD Look, I
Page 175 and 176:
13th International Conference on Au
show all

etadd_46(4) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?