etadd_46(4) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

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