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.
the array; items were replaced in the array<br />
following a choice in the MSW <strong>and</strong> not replaced<br />
in the MSWO. In the FO assessment,<br />
items were arranged in an array <strong>and</strong> participants<br />
were allowed to engage with any or all<br />
items for the durati<strong>on</strong> of the assessment. In<br />
the RR assessment, sessi<strong>on</strong>s were similar to the<br />
FO assessment, but <strong>on</strong>ce an item was determined<br />
to be preferred, it was not l<strong>on</strong>ger included<br />
in the array of items. In the CO assessment,<br />
participants selected a treatment from<br />
an array; following a treatment sessi<strong>on</strong>, they<br />
were given the opportunity to choose what<br />
treatment they would receive in the next sessi<strong>on</strong>.<br />
In the Q assessment, the participants’<br />
parents <strong>and</strong>/or staff were asked what the participant<br />
preferred.<br />
The findings in Table 1 are classified as<br />
positive, negative, <strong>and</strong> mixed. In the first category,<br />
positive indicates that the study successfully<br />
identified a reinforcer hierarchy for all<br />
included participants, whereas mixed indicates<br />
that the study was successful in identifying a<br />
reinforcer hierarchy for some, but not all participants<br />
(Wilder et al., 2008). In the sec<strong>on</strong>d<br />
category, positive indicates that when two different<br />
preference assessment formats (e.g.,<br />
Horrocks & Morgan, 2009) were compared,<br />
the most effective reinforcers were identified<br />
by the same method for all participants. Mixed<br />
indicates that when different preference assessment<br />
formats or methodologies were compared,<br />
the most effective reinforcers were not<br />
identified by the same method for all participants.<br />
In the third category, positive is used to<br />
indicate that the high preference stimulus<br />
identified was the <strong>on</strong>e that maintained resp<strong>on</strong>ding<br />
under higher resp<strong>on</strong>se requirements<br />
(e.g., DeLe<strong>on</strong> et al., 2009). Mixed is<br />
used to describe results indicating that stability<br />
of preference was not maintained for all<br />
participants (e.g., Cobigo, Morin, &<br />
Lachapelle, 2009) or that some but not all<br />
participants had a preference for a particular<br />
reinforcement magnitude. In the forth category,<br />
positive refers to those studies in which<br />
the provisi<strong>on</strong> of choice led to changes in behavior<br />
(e.g., Carls<strong>on</strong> et al., 2008). Negative is<br />
used either when no change in behavior was<br />
found (e.g., Sigafoos et al., 2009) or when no<br />
difference in behavior was found between<br />
choice <strong>and</strong> no choice interventi<strong>on</strong>s (e.g., Spevack,<br />
Martin, Hiebert, Yu, & Martin, 2005). In<br />
the final category, positive indicates that staff<br />
(or participants) were successfully trained to<br />
provide (or make) a choice.<br />
Overview of Studies<br />
Assessing Preference<br />
Nineteen studies assessed the preferences of<br />
individuals with severe to profound disabilities<br />
(Ahearn, Clark, DeBar, & Florentino, 2005;<br />
Cobigo et al., 2009; Didden et al., 2006; Didden,<br />
Korzilius, Sturmey, Lanci<strong>on</strong>i, & Curfs,<br />
2008; Dozier et al., 2007; Fisher et al., 2005;<br />
Fleming et al., 2010; Hanley et al., 2003; Hanley,<br />
Piazza, Fisher, & Maglieri, 2005; Keen &<br />
Pennell, 2010; Kreiner & Flexer, 2009; Lattimore,<br />
Pars<strong>on</strong>s, & Reid, 2003; Mechling, &<br />
Moser, 2010; O’Reilly, Lanci<strong>on</strong>i, & Sigafoos,<br />
2004; Saunders et al., 2004; Smaby, MacD<strong>on</strong>ald,<br />
Ahearn, & Dube, 2007; Smith, Bihm, Tavkar,<br />
& Sturmey, 2005; Spevack, Yu, Lee, &<br />
Martin, 2006; Wilder et al., 2008). For example,<br />
Ahearn et al. used a single stimulus preference<br />
assessment to identify preferred stimuli<br />
that were presumed to match—<strong>and</strong> not<br />
match—the sensory properties of stereotypy<br />
for two adolescent participants diagnosed with<br />
autism <strong>and</strong> severe to profound mental retardati<strong>on</strong>.<br />
Items identified as high preference<br />
were then provided, <strong>and</strong> the effects of both<br />
matched <strong>and</strong> unmatched stimuli <strong>on</strong> levels of<br />
stereotypy were assessed using a multi-element<br />
design. For both participants, significantly<br />
lower levels of stereotypy were observed when<br />
matched or unmatched items were presented.<br />
Items presumed to match the sensory properties<br />
of stereotypy did not produce lower levels<br />
relative to unmatched stimuli, suggesting that<br />
the activities that do not match properties of<br />
stereotypy could also displace resp<strong>on</strong>ding.<br />
Preference Assessment Comparis<strong>on</strong>s<br />
Eight studies compared the effects of various<br />
preference assessment formats <strong>and</strong> methodologies<br />
(Graff & Gibs<strong>on</strong>, 2003; Graff, Gibs<strong>on</strong>, &<br />
Galiasatos, 2006; Groskreutz & Graff, 2009;<br />
Horrocks & Morgan, 2009; Kodak, Fisher, Kelley,<br />
& Kisamore, 2009; Reed, Pace, & Luiselli,<br />
2009; Reid et al., 2007; Thoms<strong>on</strong>, Czarnecki,<br />
Martin, Yu, & Martin, 2007). For example,<br />
Kodak et al. compared the results of selecti<strong>on</strong>-<br />
Review of Choice <strong>and</strong> Preference Assessment / 585