etadd_46(4) - Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

Kreiner, J., & Flexer, R. (2009). Assessment of leisure
preferences for students with severe developmental
disabilities and communication difficulties.
Education and Training in Developmental
Disabilities, 44, 280–288.
Lancioni, G. E., O’Reilly, M. F., & Emerson, E.
(1996). A review of choice research with people
with severe and profound developmental disabilities.
Research in Developmental Disabilities, 17, 391–
411.
Lattimore, L. P., Parsons, M. B., & Reid, D. H.
(2003). Assessing preferred work among adults
with autism beginning supported jobs: Identification
of constant and alternating task preferences.
Behavioral Interventions, 18, 161–177.
Lee, M. S., Yu, C. T., Martin, T. L., & Martin, G. L.
(2010). On the relation between reinforcer efficacy
and preference. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 43, 95–100.
Machalicek, W., O’Reilly, M., Chan, J. M., Rispoli,
M., Lang, R., Davis, T., & Langthorne, P. (2009).
Using videoconferencing to support teachers to
conduct preference assessments with students
with autism and developmental disabilities. Research
in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 3, 32–41.
Mechling, L. C., & Moser, S. V. (2010). Video preference
assessment of students with autism for
watching self, adults, or peers. Focus on Autism and
Other Developmental Disabilities, 25, 76–84.
Milo, J. S., Mace, F. C., & Nevin, J. A. (2010). The
effects of constant versus varied reinforcers on
preference and resistance to change. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 93, 385–394.
O’Reilly, M. F., Lancioni, G. E., & Sigafoos, J.
(2004). Using paired-choice assessment to identify
variables maintaining sleep problems in a
child with severe disabilities. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 37, 209–212.
Reed, D. K., Luiselli, J. K., Magnuson, S. F., Vieira,
S., & Rue, H. C. (2009). A comparison between
traditional economical and demand curve analyses
of relative reinforcer efficacy in the validation
of preference assessment predictions. Developmental
Neurorehabilitation, 12, 164–169.
Reed, D. K., Pace, G. M., & Luiselli, J. K. (2009). An
investigation into the provision of choice in tangible
conditions of a functional analysis. Journal of
Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 21, 485–491.
Reid, D. H., Green, C. W., & Parsons, M. B. (2003).
An outcome management program for extending
advances in choice research into choice opportunities
for supported workers with severe multiple
disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36,
575–578.
Reid, D. H., Parsons, M. B., Towery, D., Lattimore,
L. P., Green, C. W., & Brackett, L. (2007). Identifying
work preferences among supported workers
with severe disabilities: Efficiency and accu-
racy of a preference-assessment protocol.
Behavioral Interventions, 22, 279–296.
Roscoe, E. M., & Fisher, W. W. (2008). Evaluation of
an efficient method for training staff to implement
stimulus preference assessments. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 41, 249–256.
Roscoe, E. M., Fisher, W. W., Glover, A. C., & Volkert,
V. M. (2006). Evaluating the relative effects of
feedback and contingent money for staff training
of stimulus preference assessments. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 39, 63–77.
Saunders, M. D., Saunders, R. R., Mulugeta, A.,
Henderson, K., Kedziorski, T., Hekker, B., & Wilson,
S. (2004). A novel method for testing learning
and preferences in people with minimal motor
movement. Research in Developmental
Disabilities, 26, 255–266.
Sigafoos, J., Green, V. A., Payne, D., Son, S. H.,
O’Reilly, M., & Lancioni, G. E. (2009). A comparison
of picture exchange and speech-generating
devices: Acquisition, preference and effects on
social interaction. Augmentative and Alternative
Communication, 25, 99–109.
Sigafoos, J., O’Reilly, M., Ganz, J. B., Lancioni, G. E.,
& Schlosser, R. W. (2005). Supporting self-determination
in AAC interventions by assessing preference
for communication devices. Technology and
Disability, 17, 143–153.
Smaby, K., MacDonald, R. P. F., Ahearn, W. H., &
Dube, W. V. (2007). Assessment protocol for
identifying preferred social consequences. Behavioral
Interventions, 22, 311–318.
Smith, A. J., Bihm, E. M., Tavkar, P, & Sturmey, P.
(2004). Approach-avoidance and happiness indicators
in natural environments: A preliminary
analysis of the stimulus preference coding system.
Research in Developmental Disabilities, 26, 297–313.
Son, S. H., Sigafoos, J., O’Reilly, M., & Lancioni,
G. E. (2006). Comparing two types of augmentative
and alternative communication systems for
children with autism. Pediatric Rehabilitation, 9,
389–395.
Spevack, S., Martin, T. L., Hiebert, R., Yu, C. T., &
Martin, G. L. (2005). Effects of choice of work
tasks on on-task, aberrant, happiness and unhappiness
behaviours of persons with developmental
disabilities. Journal on Developmental Disabilities, 11,
79–98.
Spevack, S., Yu, C. T., Lee, M. S., & Martin, G. L.
(2006). Sensitivity of passive approach during
preference and reinforcer assessments for children
with severe and profound intellectual disabilities
and minimal movement. Behavioral Interventions,
21, 165–175.
Tasky, K. M., Rudrud, E. H., Schulze, K. A., & Rapp,
J. T. (2008). Using choice to increase on-task
behavior in individuals with traumatic brain in-
594 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-December 2011