etadd_46(4) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities
etadd_46(4) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities
etadd_46(4) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
ti<strong>on</strong>s: (a) Are choice interventi<strong>on</strong>s successful<br />
at reducing challenging behavior <strong>and</strong> increasing<br />
appropriate behaviors, <strong>and</strong> how have<br />
these interventi<strong>on</strong>s changed over time?, (b)<br />
How successful are preference assessments at<br />
identifying reinforcing stimuli, <strong>and</strong> how has<br />
their administrati<strong>on</strong> changed in recent years?,<br />
(c) How accessible are preference assessments<br />
<strong>and</strong> choice interventi<strong>on</strong>s to parents <strong>and</strong> staff<br />
who care <strong>and</strong> work for individuals with severe<br />
to profound disabilities?, <strong>and</strong> (d) What populati<strong>on</strong>s<br />
of individuals may benefit the most<br />
from preference assessment methodologies?<br />
Finally, potential lines for future research will<br />
be explored.<br />
Method<br />
Studies were included in this review based <strong>on</strong><br />
the following criteria: each study (a) was an<br />
assessment or interventi<strong>on</strong> study c<strong>on</strong>cerned<br />
with either choice or preference, (b) had at<br />
least <strong>on</strong>e participant with a severe to profound<br />
disability, <strong>and</strong> (c) was published between 2002<br />
<strong>and</strong> 2010. Studies in which preference assessments<br />
were used but were not the focus of the<br />
study were excluded (e.g., if a preference assessment<br />
was used to identify items used in<br />
m<strong>and</strong> training).<br />
Articles that did not meet the inclusi<strong>on</strong> criteria<br />
were excluded from the review. For example,<br />
studies were excluded if participants<br />
were not sufficiently described such that the<br />
reader could determine if the participants had<br />
a severe to profound disability. For example,<br />
Cicc<strong>on</strong>e, Graff, <strong>and</strong> Ahearn (2007) was excluded<br />
because participants were described as<br />
having a diagnosis of a developmental disability<br />
<strong>and</strong>/or autism, no other informati<strong>on</strong> was<br />
available to determine severity of the disability<br />
(e.g., limited communicati<strong>on</strong>).<br />
Electr<strong>on</strong>ic searches were c<strong>on</strong>ducted using<br />
ERIC, PsycINFO, MedLine, <strong>and</strong> Google<br />
Scholar. H<strong>and</strong> searches were also c<strong>on</strong>ducted<br />
using the reference secti<strong>on</strong>s of the articles<br />
identified through the electr<strong>on</strong>ic searches to<br />
identify a more complete set of articles. Sixtythree<br />
studies were identified <strong>and</strong> 50 studies<br />
met the inclusi<strong>on</strong> criteria. Two independent<br />
readers summarized <str<strong>on</strong>g>46</str<strong>on</strong>g>% of the articles. Each<br />
summary included the reference, sample size,<br />
age of participants, stimuli used in the preference<br />
assessments, experimental design (if ap-<br />
plicable), type of preference assessment used,<br />
<strong>and</strong> the reported findings (i.e., positive, negative,<br />
or mixed). No major discrepancies were<br />
observed across readers (i.e., both readers<br />
noted the same informati<strong>on</strong> in the summaries).<br />
Studies included in this review were divided<br />
into five categories <strong>and</strong> are presented in Table<br />
1. Studies in the first category examined the<br />
effectiveness of various preference assessment<br />
formats <strong>and</strong> methodologies (e.g., Hanley,<br />
Iwata, Lindberg, & C<strong>on</strong>ners, 2003; O’Reilly,<br />
Lanci<strong>on</strong>i, & Sigafoos, 2004). Studies included<br />
in the sec<strong>on</strong>d category compared the effects<br />
of various preference assessment formats or<br />
comp<strong>on</strong>ents within a preference assessment<br />
(e.g., Horrocks & Morgan, 2009; Kodak,<br />
Fisher, Kelley, & Kisamore, 2009). Studies in<br />
the third category examined the underlying<br />
mechanisms of preference for individuals with<br />
severe to profound disabilities (e.g., DeLe<strong>on</strong>,<br />
Frank, Gregory, & Allman, 2009: Glover,<br />
Roane, Kadey, & Grow, 2008). Studies in the<br />
fourth category examined the effects of<br />
choice <strong>on</strong> both appropriate <strong>and</strong> challenging<br />
behavior (e.g., Carls<strong>on</strong>, Luiselli, Slyman, &<br />
Markowski, 2008; Hoch, McComas, Johns<strong>on</strong>,<br />
Far<strong>and</strong>a, & Guenther, 2002). Finally, studies<br />
in the fifth category examined methods for<br />
training staff to provide choices as well as<br />
teaching individuals with severe to profound<br />
disabilities to make choices (e.g., Clevenger &<br />
Graff, 2005; Roscoe, Fisher, Glover, & Volkert,<br />
2006).<br />
For each study, Table 1 reports the number<br />
of participants with severe to profound disabilities<br />
(n), their age, the stimuli provided (e.g.,<br />
tangible items), the experimental design used<br />
(where given), the preference assessment format,<br />
<strong>and</strong> the major findings. Eight preference<br />
assessment formats were examined in the<br />
studies reviewed <strong>and</strong> included: single stimulus<br />
(SS), paired choice (PC), multiple stimulus<br />
with replacement (MSW), multiple stimulus<br />
without replacement (MSWO), free operant<br />
(FO), resp<strong>on</strong>se restricti<strong>on</strong> (RR), c<strong>on</strong>current<br />
operant (CO), <strong>and</strong> questi<strong>on</strong>naires (Q). In the<br />
SS assessment, a single stimulus was presented<br />
to the participant. In the PC assessment, participants<br />
could choose <strong>on</strong>e of two opti<strong>on</strong>s. In<br />
the MSW <strong>and</strong> MSWO assessments, an array of<br />
stimuli were presented to the participant, who<br />
was allowed to choose <strong>on</strong>e item at a time from<br />
Review of Choice <strong>and</strong> Preference Assessment / 577