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
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
TABLE 1—(C<strong>on</strong>tinued)<br />
Studies Listed According to Categories with Number <strong>and</strong> Age of Participants (<strong>on</strong>ly those with a severe to profound disability), Experimental Design, Type of<br />
Stimuli Presented, Choice Format, <strong>and</strong> Results<br />
Stimuli Choice Format Results<br />
Category/Article Name n Age Design 12<br />
Spevack, Yu, Lee, & Martin. (2006). 2 8, 12 Reversal Sensoryactivities SS Positive<br />
Sensitivity of passive approach during preference <strong>and</strong> reinforcer<br />
assessments for children with severe <strong>and</strong> profound intellectual<br />
disabilities <strong>and</strong> minimal movement<br />
Olfactory stimuli PC Mixed<br />
Wilder, Schadler, Higbee, Haymes, Bajagic, & Register. (2008). 2 13–38 Reversal w/<br />
Identificati<strong>on</strong> of olfactory stimuli as reinforcers in individuals with autism:<br />
ME<br />
A preliminary investigati<strong>on</strong>.<br />
Preference Assessment Comparis<strong>on</strong>s<br />
Graff & Gibs<strong>on</strong>. (2003). 2 14–20 Reversal Edible items, pictures PC Positive<br />
Using pictures to assess reinforcers in individuals with developmental<br />
disabilities.<br />
Graff, Gibs<strong>on</strong>, & Gallatsatos. (2006). 4 14–15 Reversal w/ AT Tangible items/pictures PC Positive<br />
The impact of high- <strong>and</strong> low-preference stimuli <strong>on</strong> vocati<strong>on</strong>al <strong>and</strong><br />
academic performances of youths with severe disabilities.<br />
Groskreutz & Graff. (2009). 5 15–17 Reversal Edible items PC Positive<br />
Evaluating pictorial preference assessment: The effect of differential 4 15–17 Reversal w/ AT Edible items PC Mixed<br />
outcomes <strong>on</strong> preference assessment results.<br />
Horrocks & Morgan. (2009). 3 18–22 N/A Work materials PC vs. Positive<br />
Comparis<strong>on</strong> of a video-based assessment <strong>and</strong> a multiple stimulus to identify<br />
MSWO<br />
preferred jobs for individuals with significant intellectual disabilities.<br />
580 / Educati<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> Training in <strong>Autism</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Developmental</strong> <strong>Disabilities</strong>-December 2011<br />
Kodak, Fisher, Kelley, & Kisamore. (2009). 4 3–10 Reversal Food/toys FO vs. MSW Mixed<br />
Comparing preference assessments: Selecti<strong>on</strong>- versus durati<strong>on</strong>-based<br />
preference assessment procedures.<br />
Reed, Luiselli, Magnus<strong>on</strong>, Fillers, Vieira, & Rue. (2009). 1 19.5 AT Edible Items PC vs. Positive<br />
A comparis<strong>on</strong> between traditi<strong>on</strong>al ec<strong>on</strong>omical <strong>and</strong> dem<strong>and</strong> curve analyses<br />
MSWO vs.<br />
of relative reinforcer efficacy in the validati<strong>on</strong> of preference assessment<br />
FO<br />
predicti<strong>on</strong>s.