etadd_46(4) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

may be of little use to caregivers or other
individuals without specialized training.
Lastly, preference and choice methodologies
seem to be beneficial for a wide range of
individuals with severe to profound disabilities.
Implementation of choice and preference
technologies is effective for identifying
various potentially reinforcing stimuli (e.g.,
edible items, leisure items, smells). Less apparent
are strategies that are more effective
with specific populations or individual characteristics.
The effectiveness of the most widely
used preference assessments (i.e., PC &
MSWO) may be influenced by each individual’s
behavioral repertoire or physical ability.
For example, if an individual has a physical
impairment (e.g., cerebral palsy) an MSWO
may be ineffective as a means of determining
preference due to limited mobility, whereas a
PC assessment using eye gaze may be more
appropriate (Fleming et al., 2010). Clevenger
and Graff (2005) demonstrated that pictorial
preference assessments were more appropriate
for individuals who engaged in object-topicture
matching. The effectiveness of any
preference assessment methodology to identify
reinforcers may be impacted by individual
differences such as behavioral repertoire and
physical ability.
One method that may be promising is assessing
prerequisite skills that may be required
for an assessment to be applicable to a given
population of individuals. Thomson et al.
(2007) tested the efficacy of SS and PC preference
assessments with 11 individuals diagnosed
with severe disabilities. In the preassessment
phase, participants were assessed with
the Assessment of Basic Learning Abilities
(ABLA; Kerr, Meyerson, & Flora, 1977) to
determine individual skill levels. PC and SS
assessments were then conducted with the
participants. The data indicated that either
assessment was effective in identifying highand
low-preference items for individuals who
had mastered two-choice discriminations on
the ABLA. Although these results are positive,
Thomson et al. did not conduct reinforcer
assessments to determine the predictive validity
of the assessments. Additionally the authors
did not assess the effectiveness of the preference
assessments with individuals that did not
demonstrate mastery of two item discriminations
on the ABLA.
With regard to future research, it may be
especially relevant to determine if there are
prerequisite skills that influence the results of
specific preference assessment methodologies
and resulting choice interventions or specific
individuals who may benefit from one type of
assessment over another. No clear criteria exist
to guide the use of one preference assessment
over another, to determine who would
benefit from a specific type of preference assessment,
how much of the stimulus should be
available (e.g., duration, magnitude), or what
overall method is the most efficient and effective.
Graff and Gibson (2003) reported mixed
results when assessing preferences using pictures
of stimuli and similar results were reported
by Cobigo et al. (2009). These results
indicate the potential for a requisite skill set
for this type of assessment to be accurate.
Another area of future research is on the
complexity of preference. For example, what
magnitude of a preferred stimulus is most
effective, or how durable are the results of a
preference assessment? Further understanding
of preference may be required for assessments
and interventions based on choice to
be effective in less controlled environments
(e.g., home or classroom). Current research
supports the efficacy of using highly preferred
items as reinforcers under lean schedules of
reinforcement and that this effect is persistent
in the presence of low preference stimuli
(e.g., Glover et al., 2008). It is unknown if
response allocation in the presence of other
highly preferred items or moderately preferred
items would yield the same or similar
results.
Additionally, methods for increasing the effectiveness
of low preference stimuli to function
as reinforcers may also be useful. Glover
et al. (2008) demonstrated the reinforcing
effectiveness of low preference items at a low
schedule requirement. Further investigating
the mechanisms that underlie preference may
also shed light on methods of increasing preference
measures for low preference items.
This information may also be useful for increasing
the effectiveness of lower preferred
items to function as reinforcers (Hanley et al.,
2003).
New research may also seek to determine
the extent to which magnitude influences
preference for items. Altering the magnitude
Review of Choice and Preference Assessment / 591