etadd_46(4) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

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