etadd_46(4) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

have implications for supported work environments.
As students grow older, a greater
emphasis may be placed on vocational opportunities
and independence in these settings.
In the current review, seven studies
were conducted in vocational settings or focused
on vocational tasks (Cobigo et al.,
2009; Graff et al., 2006; Horrocks & Morgan,
2009; Lattimore et al., 2003; Reid et al.,
2007; Spevack et al., 2008; Tasky et al.,
2008). For example, Lattimore et al. implemented
multiple stimuli with replacement
(MSW) preference assessments outside of
the work context with five individuals to
determine preference for specific work
tasks. After preferences were identified, participants
were given the choice of tasks to
complete during their daily work routine.
Data indicated that the MSW assessment was
effective in identifying preferred work preferences
for the participants. Increases in
choice making were observed in participants
who did not display stable work preferences,
and stable choice making was observed in
participants who displayed stable preferences
during the MSW. These data suggest
that including a choice component may enhance
the vocational planning process for
adults with severe to profound disabilities.
Although a large number of investigations
reported positive results, these results should
be viewed with a degree of caution. Of the
studies cited, 11 reported mixed findings overall
or findings that were negative or mixed for
at least one experiment in the investigation.
For example, Sigafoos et al. (2009) reported
positive findings in the final two phases, but
negative findings in the first phase of the investigation.
These findings are important to
consider when replicating procedures for future
research as well as in clinical practice.
First, the findings may indicate further areas
of research into the implementation of choice
and preference assessment methodology. The
failure of an assessment methodology to yield
positive results may be an indicator of the
need for procedural refinement. Second,
mixed results may be an indication that specific
procedures are not appropriate for use
with certain populations of individuals or under
specific environmental conditions.
Accessibility of Preference Assessments and Choice
Interventions
All four studies focusing on staff training reported
clearly positive results, indicating the
potential to successfully teach direct-care staff
members to implement choice interventions
(Reid et al., 2003) and preference assessments
(Roscoe & Fisher, 2008; Roscoe et al., 2006;
Machalicek et al., 2009). Although these studies
reported positive results, a potential limitation
in the training literature is the degree
that these procedures may be effective in
training parents or other care providers in
more naturalistic environments. Participants
in all four studies were employed at the facility
where the research was conducted or were
supervised by the first author of the study, and
training for two studies (Roscoe & Fisher,
2008; Roscoe et al.) was conducted outside of
the natural context. Both the population (i.e.,
therapists, job coaches) and the settings have
the potential to limit the accessibility of choice
and preference procedures to specific environments
and individuals for three studies
(Reid et al.; Roscoe & Fisher, 2008; Roscoe et
al.). In contrast Machalicek et al. demonstrated
a method of providing supervision and
training in implementing preference assessment
methodology via teleconference. The
use of technology allowed the researchers to
assess skill acquisition of the participants (preservice
teachers) in the natural context with
their students.
Although it is important for professionals to
know how to implement choice and preference
methodologies, it may be even more useful
to parents or other caregivers. Three articles
that implemented choice interventions
(Carlson et al., 2008; Harding et al., 2009;
Humenik et al., 2008) and one preference
assessment study (O’Reilly et al., 2004) included
a parent, teacher, or other care provider
as the interventionist. Carlson et al. implemented
a choice intervention to decrease
urinary incontinence and public disrobing for
two individuals. Teachers were trained to implement
the intervention, but data on their
skill acquisition and treatment fidelity were
not presented. Data indicated that the choice
intervention decreased the occurrence of incontinence
and disrobing for both participants.
Additionally, the teachers did not re-
Review of Choice and Preference Assessment / 589