etadd_46(4) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
(i.e., MSW) and duration-based (i.e., FO) preference assessments to determine which method identified the item that produced the highest rates of responding for four participants between the ages 2 and 10 with autism and other developmental disabilities. All participants engaged in limited communication and only one followed instructions requiring multiple steps. Following the preference assessments, reinforcer assessments were conducted comparing the high-preferred (HP) stimulus from each assessment. For two participants, the HP items identified with the MSW were more effective than the HP item identified with the FO. The remaining two participants engaged in undifferentiated responding during the reinforcer assessments, and the HP items maintained responding in reinforcer assessments. Mechanisms Underlying Preference Five studies evaluated the mechanisms underlying preference in individuals with severe to profound disabilities (DeLeon et al., 2009; Glover et al., 2008; Kodak, Lerman, Volkert, & Trosclair, 2007; Lee, Yu, Martin, & Martin, 2010; Milo, Mace, & Nevin, 2010). For example, DeLeon et al. examined if items that differed in placement on a preference hierarchy would have different break points under a progressive ratio (PR) schedule of reinforcement with four participants with severe to profound disabilities. Paired choice preference assessments were conducted to identify a hierarchy of leisure items, followed by three PR analyses in random order. Prior to sessions, participants completed a known task three times, then they were given access to a high, medium, or low preference item. During PR sessions, the same item remained in view and one verbal prompt to complete the task that was presented. The stimulus being assessed was delivered on a PR schedule beginning with one response (e.g., single completion, two completions, etc.). The data indicated that participants completed more work when a more highly preferred stimulus was delivered and supports the conclusion that items on different ends of a preference hierarchy may support different amounts of work. Effects of Choice Thirteen studies assessed the effects of choice on task engagement, challenging behavior, and the affect of individuals with severe to profound disabilities (Cannella-Malone, Debar, & Sigafoos, 2009; Carlson et al., 2008; Dixon & Falcomata, 2004; Harding, Wacker, Berg, Barretto, & Lee, 2005; Harding, Wacker, Berg, Winborn-Kemmerer, & Lee, 2009; Hoch et al., 2002; Humenik, Curran, Luiselli, & Child, 2008; Reed, Pace, & Luiselli, 2009; Sigafoos et al., 2009; Sigafoos, O’Reilly, Ganz, Lancioni, & Schlosser, 2005; Son, Sigafoos, O’Reilly, & Lancioni, 2006; Spevack et al., 2005; Tasky, Rudrud, Schulze & Rapp, 2008). For example, Tasky et al. evaluated the effects of choice on the task engagement of three women with traumatic brain injuries. For each participant, a list of tasks—requiring 10 to 15 min to complete—designed to increase daily living skills was created. During baseline, participants were given tasks, asked to complete the tasks in the order presented, and return the completed list. In the choice condition, participants chose activities from a list and were instructed to complete the list in any order. In the yoked no choice condition, the activities chosen in the previous choice condition were assigned. Using a reversal design, the researchers found that all three participants engaged in higher levels of task engagement when they were given the opportunity to choose the task and completion order. Teaching Individuals to Make Choices and Training Staff to Provide Choice Opportunities Five studies focused on training staff to provide choice opportunities (Reid, Green, & Parsons, 2003) and implement preference assessments (Machalicek et al., 2009; Roscoe & Fisher, 2008; Roscoe et al., 2006), or teaching individuals with severe to profound disabilities to make choices (Clevenger & Graff, 2005). For example, Reid et al. taught two job coaches to provide choice opportunities to five supported workers with severe to profound disabilities. Job coaches were trained to provide different types of choices (e.g., location, task), use different formats (e.g., openended, two-option choice), and deliver the stimuli or activities once the choice was made. 586 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-December 2011
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:
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:
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 69 and 70: Education and Training in Autism an
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 103 and 104: TABLE 1 Studies Listed According to
Page 105 and 106: TABLE 1—(Continued) Studies Liste
Page 107 and 108: TABLE 1—(Continued) Studies Liste
Page 109: TABLE 1—(Continued) Studies Liste
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?