etadd_46(4) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
TABLE 1 Studies Listed According to Categories with Number and Age of Participants (only those with a severe to profound disability), Experimental Design, Type of Stimuli Presented, Choice Format, and Results Stimuli Choice Format Results Category/Article Name n Age Design 12 Assessing Preference Ahearn, Clark, DeBar, & Florentino. (2005). 2 11–13 ME Tangible items SS Positive On the role of preference in response competition. Cobigo, Morin, & Lachapelle. (2009). 19 23–58 N/A Work materials/ pictures PC Mixed A method to assess work task preferences. Didden, Korzilius, Kamphuis, Sturmey, Lancioni, & Curfs. (2006). 105 1–45 N/A N/A Q Positive Preference in individuals with angelman syndrome assessed by a modified choice assessment scale. Didden, Korzilius, Sturmey, Lancioni, & Curfs. (2008). 81 Mean Group Design N/A Q Positive Preference for water-related items in angelman syndrome, down age: syndrome, and non-specific intellectual disability. 12 Dozier, Vollmer, Borrero, Borrero, Rapp, Bourett, & Guiterrez. (2007). 2 6, 14 Reversal w/ AT Access to baseline or CO Positive Assessment for behavioral treatment versus baseline conditions. treatment conditions Fisher, Adelinis, Volkert, Keeney, Neidert, & Hovanetz. (2005). 2 13, 14 Reversal/AT Access to positive or CO Positive Assessing preferences for positive and negative reinforcement during negative reinforcement treatment of destructive behavior with functional communication training. 4 14–21 Reversal Tangible/edible items PC Positive Fleming, Wheeler, Cannella-Malone, Basbagill, Chung, & Graham-Day. (2010). An evaluation of the use of eye gaze to measure preference of individuals with severe physical and developmental disabilities. 578 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-December 2011 Hanley, Iwata, Lindberg, & Conners. (2003). 2 34–66 N/A Leisure activities RR Positive Response-restriction analysis: I. assessment of activity preferences. FO Positive Hanley, Piazza, Fisher, & Maglieri. (2005). 2 5–8 ME Tangible items CO Positive On the effectiveness of and preference for punishment and extinction Reversal w/ Access to attention, FCT, CO Positive components of function-based interventions. ME punishment, reinforcement
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 and 100: can be made. Last, because consumer
Page 101: Education and Training in Autism an
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?