etadd_46(4) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

tions: (a) Are choice interventions successful
at reducing challenging behavior and increasing
appropriate behaviors, and how have
these interventions changed over time?, (b)
How successful are preference assessments at
identifying reinforcing stimuli, and how has
their administration changed in recent years?,
(c) How accessible are preference assessments
and choice interventions to parents and staff
who care and work for individuals with severe
to profound disabilities?, and (d) What populations
of individuals may benefit the most
from preference assessment methodologies?
Finally, potential lines for future research will
be explored.
Method
Studies were included in this review based on
the following criteria: each study (a) was an
assessment or intervention study concerned
with either choice or preference, (b) had at
least one participant with a severe to profound
disability, and (c) was published between 2002
and 2010. Studies in which preference assessments
were used but were not the focus of the
study were excluded (e.g., if a preference assessment
was used to identify items used in
mand training).
Articles that did not meet the inclusion criteria
were excluded from the review. For example,
studies were excluded if participants
were not sufficiently described such that the
reader could determine if the participants had
a severe to profound disability. For example,
Ciccone, Graff, and Ahearn (2007) was excluded
because participants were described as
having a diagnosis of a developmental disability
and/or autism, no other information was
available to determine severity of the disability
(e.g., limited communication).
Electronic searches were conducted using
ERIC, PsycINFO, MedLine, and Google
Scholar. Hand searches were also conducted
using the reference sections of the articles
identified through the electronic searches to
identify a more complete set of articles. Sixtythree
studies were identified and 50 studies
met the inclusion criteria. Two independent
readers summarized <strong>46</strong>% of the articles. Each
summary included the reference, sample size,
age of participants, stimuli used in the preference
assessments, experimental design (if ap-
plicable), type of preference assessment used,
and the reported findings (i.e., positive, negative,
or mixed). No major discrepancies were
observed across readers (i.e., both readers
noted the same information in the summaries).
Studies included in this review were divided
into five categories and are presented in Table
1. Studies in the first category examined the
effectiveness of various preference assessment
formats and methodologies (e.g., Hanley,
Iwata, Lindberg, & Conners, 2003; O’Reilly,
Lancioni, & Sigafoos, 2004). Studies included
in the second category compared the effects
of various preference assessment formats or
components within a preference assessment
(e.g., Horrocks & Morgan, 2009; Kodak,
Fisher, Kelley, & Kisamore, 2009). Studies in
the third category examined the underlying
mechanisms of preference for individuals with
severe to profound disabilities (e.g., DeLeon,
Frank, Gregory, & Allman, 2009: Glover,
Roane, Kadey, & Grow, 2008). Studies in the
fourth category examined the effects of
choice on both appropriate and challenging
behavior (e.g., Carlson, Luiselli, Slyman, &
Markowski, 2008; Hoch, McComas, Johnson,
Faranda, & Guenther, 2002). Finally, studies
in the fifth category examined methods for
training staff to provide choices as well as
teaching individuals with severe to profound
disabilities to make choices (e.g., Clevenger &
Graff, 2005; Roscoe, Fisher, Glover, & Volkert,
2006).
For each study, Table 1 reports the number
of participants with severe to profound disabilities
(n), their age, the stimuli provided (e.g.,
tangible items), the experimental design used
(where given), the preference assessment format,
and the major findings. Eight preference
assessment formats were examined in the
studies reviewed and included: single stimulus
(SS), paired choice (PC), multiple stimulus
with replacement (MSW), multiple stimulus
without replacement (MSWO), free operant
(FO), response restriction (RR), concurrent
operant (CO), and questionnaires (Q). In the
SS assessment, a single stimulus was presented
to the participant. In the PC assessment, participants
could choose one of two options. In
the MSW and MSWO assessments, an array of
stimuli were presented to the participant, who
was allowed to choose one item at a time from
Review of Choice and Preference Assessment / 577