preference assessments: why they are important & …€¦ · 10/23/2014 1 preference...
TRANSCRIPT
10/23/2014
1
Preference Assessments:Why They are Important & How
to do Them
Ruth M. DeBar, Ph.D., BCBA-D
Objectives• Identify reasons it is important to assess
preference
• To distinguish between different types of preference assessments and different procedures for implementing each
• To identify variables to consider
• Extensions of preference
Challenges Assessing Preference for Learners with ASD
• Communication deficits
• May have restricted interests
‐Piazza, Fisher, Bowman & Blakey-Smith (1999)
• May be exposed environment which limits familiarity with novel items
10/23/2014
2
Why is Preference of ReinforcersImportant for Learners with ASD?
• The effectiveness of skill acquisition andbehavior reduction programs depend theidentification and the implementation of
potent reinforcers!
Preference Assessments
• Indirect– Surveys & Interviews
• Direct– Preference Directly measured– Examples:
• Single-stimulus, paired-preference, MSWO, duration-based
Why not simply ask?
• Identifying commonly accessed items• Overlook idiosyncratic preferences• Incorrect selection• Characteristics that impede accuracy of
respondents reporting
Canella-Malone, Sabielny, Jimenez, & Miller (2013)
10/23/2014
4
Fisher, Piazza, Bowman, & Amari (1996)
Indirect Preference Assessments
• Examples: Interviews & surveys– Pros
• Easy & quicky q– Cons
• Not as accurate as empirical preference assessments
Direct Assessments in Identifying Stimulus Preference
• Single-stimulus
• Paired Stimulus
• Multiple Stimulus Without Replacement (MSWO)Replacement (MSWO)
• Duration-based preference assessment
• Free-operant
10/23/2014
5
Single-stimulus Assessment
• In general,– Identify items to be assessed– Present one item at a time
Allo learner 5 seconds to approach item– Allow learner 5 seconds to approach item– If no approach for the 1st presentation, record N0
Approach on data sheet, represent, and prompt engagement for 5 seconds
– If learner approaches item after representing it, permit engagement
Single-stimulus Assessment
• In general,– If no approach for the 2nd presentation, record
No Approach on data sheet and move onto next trial
– If learner emits any refusal behavior or problem upon presentation of stimulus, remove item and discontinue its use
Single-stimulus PresentationItem Response Notes
Fritos C
Chip C
Cookie CCookie C
Ritz C
Water C
10/23/2014
6
Single-stimulus presentation
• Benefits:– Quick & easy– Good method to introduce novel stimuli– Does not require a scanning repertoire nor choiceDoes not require a scanning repertoire nor choice
behavior
• Limitations:– May overestimate preference– Does not generate a hierarchy of preference
Paired- Stimulus Preference Assessment
• Gather your data sheet and your items• Present both items simultaneously and state
“Pick one.” O l h l t d it• Once your learner has selected an item, allow 10-30 seconds to engage with it.
Paired-Stimulus Preference Assessment
• If your learner does not make a response,– represent each item singly for 5 seconds
h i– Represent choice– If your learner selects 1 of the 2, allow engagement
10/23/2014
7
Paired-Stimulus Preference Assessment
• If your learners reaches for both items, block access and represent trial
• Run no more than 20 25 trials at a time• Run no more than 20-25 trials at a time
• Discontinue if your learner makes No Response across 3 consecutive trials
Paired Preference Assessment
Stimuli
1. Robot
2. Drum
3. Ball Toy
4. Hurricane
5 I d
Trial Left Right NR (No-response) or R (Refusal)
1 1 2
2 3 4
3 5 6
4 7 8
5 2 3
6 4 55. Ipad
6. Musical book
7. See n say
8. Playdough
6 4 5
7 8 2
8 6 7
9 3 1
10 4 2
Paired-Stimulus Preference Assessment
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
ent Selected
0
10
20
30
40
Ipad Water tube Robot Drum
Perce
10/23/2014
8
Paired-Stimulus Preference Assessment
– Benefits:
• More accurate estimate of preference than Single-stimulus preference assessment
• Generates a hierarchy of preference
– Limitations:
• Time consuming
• Requires that an item be removed after presentation, which can be problematic
Multiple Stimulus Without Replacement (MSWO)
• General procedures:– Sit across the learner– Present 5-7 items (Place middle or 4th item in front
of the learner)of the learner)– Say “Pick one,” or “Choose”
MSWO– If participant:
• Selects: allow engagement for 10-30 sec or until consumed
• Approached mores than 1 item, block
Oth i–Otherwise,• Record selection and systematically shift items• Repeat until all items selected • If no items are selected, represent opportunity• If no selection for 2 consecutive trials, discontinue. • Repeat for 3- 7 sessions
10/23/2014
9
MSWO1. Turtle Shape
Sorter2. Don’t Break the
Ice3. Farm House 4. Work Bench
5. Race Track
Session 1 Item selected Notes: Order:1-2-3-4-5
Trial 1 Don’t Break the Ice
Trial 2 Work Bench
Trial 3 Turtle
Trial 4 Farm House
Trial 5 Race Track
Data Calculation
The number of times selected/the number of times the item was presented
Item Formula % Approached
Don’t break the Ice 1/1 100%
• Average across all sessions
Workbench and hammer
1/2 50%
Turtle shape sorter 1/3 33%
Race track 1/4 25%
Results
60%
80%
100%
elected
0%
20%
40%
Don’t break the Ice
Workbench and hammer
Turtle shape sorter
Race track
Percen
t Se
Items
10/23/2014
10
MSWO– Benefits:
• More accurate than Single-stimulus preference assessment
• Easier to and less time consuming than paired-preference assessment
– Limitations:Limitations:• Session behavior is important:
– Scanning
– Attending
– Leaving item on table between trials
Single-stimulus engagement
• Present one item at a time• Engagement with item is measured for a
pre-determined interval– 2 min (e.g., DeLeon, Iwata, Conners, Wallace, 1999)
• Calculate the percent engagement– Total number of seconds engaged/total number
of seconds with the item
Results
60
80
100
Engaged
0
20
40
Alligator Xylophone Electronic Drum
Percen
t E
10/23/2014
11
Single-stimulus engagement
• Benefits:– Take less time to identify preferred stimuli– Can include open-ended activities– May be best for learners who have deficits in
choice making behavior
Single-stimulus engagement
• Limitations:– Some participants may approach/engage with
all itemsLi i d ili f dibl– Limited utility for edibles
Free-operant Preference Assessment
• Allow learner to explore items within an environment
• Teacher/clinician does not present and/or manipulate presentation of materialsmanipulate presentation of materials
• Record duration and frequency of which items/activities engaged
10/23/2014
12
Free-operant Preference Assessment
350400450500550600
in Secon
ds
050
100150200250300
Trampoline Figurines Books
Total D
uration
Free-operant Preference Assessment
• Quick & easy• Not withholding, removing, nor manipulating
stimuli to be assessed
When Should Preferences be Conducted?
• Should be a standard part of an individual’s program– Minimally conducted annuallyy y– Mini-assessments can be conducted daily☺
• More often:– If student has a small pool of reinforcers– Lack of progress with skill acquisition
programs
10/23/2014
13
Choice Books
Prior to beginning. . . .
• Consider the type most appropriate for your learner
• Gather information G h S i li• Gather Stimuli
• Conduct your preference assessment• Calculate results
Clinical guidelines. . .
Can the student choose?
NO,Single-stimulus
assessmentassess e t
Yes,Paired-stimulus
MSWO
10/23/2014
14
Clinical guidelines. . .
Does the student have pic to
object/object to i hi ?
NO,Must use
representative ipic matching? items
Yes,Picture format
Clinical guidelines. . .
Does the student Does the student have behavior
problems related to accessing
NO, Super! Life is good!
gto access gtangibles? Yes,
Paired-stimulus orMSWO not
appropriate. .use duration-based
assessments
Other considerations. .
Student grabs more than one
item?Student shows a
side bias?The student stops
responding?
Student has difficulty
returning item selected?
Student have physical
impairments?Keep categories
separate. .
10/23/2014
15
Terminology
• Reinforcer-A stimulus change that increases the future frequency of behavior that immediately precedes it.
(Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007)
• Highly preferred stimuli-Stimuli approached or engaged most often.
Reinforcer Assessments
• Direct methods used to present a contingent stimulus on a simple, low effort response while measuring the effects on rate of responding
(Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007)
Preference for Social Consequences
• Rapid assessment to evaluate preference and reinforcing effectiveness of social reinforcers
• Includes a low effort, mastered response• Includes a control (no consequence)• Potential social reinforcer assessed 1 min
Smaby, MacDonald, Ahearn, & Dube (2007)
10/23/2014
16
Preference for Social Consequences
Preference for Social Consequences
Maintenance of Social Consequences1 week 2 weeks 3 weeks
10/23/2014
17
Preferred Social Consequences• Advantages
– Great way to assess sensitivity to social consequences
– Simultaneously identified preference and reinforcing effectsreinforcing effects
– It is quick Limitations:
– Its quick– Additional research
Choice is Clinically Important
• “Choice is a central principle in the delivery of ethical behavioral services. . . .The point is . . .a client must have
-Martinez-Diaz, Freeman, Nomand, & Heron (2007)
alternatives, must be able to perform each alternative, and must be able to experience the natural consequence of the chosen alternative.” (p.674)
Clinical Applications of Choice
Research supports that individuals can indicate preference when presented with choice-making opportunities– Interventions– Selection of AAC devices – Leisure activities – Instructional activities– Vocational tasks
10/23/2014
18
In closing. . .• Assessing preference is paramount to effective
programing
• Varies preference assessment methods exist
• Type of assessment type should be client-driven
• Preference and choice can be utilized in practical ways
In closing. . .
• Consider the role of motivating operations, variety, and shifts over time
Addi i l h b i f li i l• Additional research to better inform clinical practice: – Social reinforers– Choice of interventions and other areas
Thank you for your attention!
• Any further questions?
• Email:
• Special thank you to , future behavior analysts☺
10/23/2014
19
References
• Canella-Malone, H.I., DeBar, R.M., Sigafoos, J. (2009). An examination of preference for augmentative and alternative communication devices
• With Two Boys With Significant Intellectual Disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 4, 262--273• Cannella-Malone, H. I., Sabielny, L. S., Jimenez, E. D., & Miller, M. M. (2013). Pick one! Conducting preference assessments with
students with significant disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45, 16-23.• Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall. • DeLeon, I.G., & Iwata, B. A.(1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format reinforcer preferences assessment.• Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 519-532. f pp y• Fisher, W., & Mazur, J.E. (1997). Basic and applied research on choice responding. . Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 387-410.• Fisher, W., Piazza, C.C., Bowman, L.G., Hagopian, L.P., Owens, J.C., & Slevin, I. (1992). A comparison of two approaches for identifying
reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25,491-498 • Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & Lindberg, J. S. (1999). Analysis of activity preferences as a function of differential consequences.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 419–435.• Jenson, W.R., Rhode, G., Reavis, H.K. (1994). The tough kid tool box. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
References
• Kang, S., Lang, R. B., O’Reilly, M. F., Davis, T. N., Machalicek, W., Rispoli, M. J., & Chan J. M.(2010).Problem behavior during preference assessments: An empirical analysis and practical recommendations. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 137-141.
• Martinez-Diaz, J.A., Freeman, T.R., Normand, M., & Heron, T.E. (2007). Ethical considerations for behavior analysts. Invited Chapter in J.O. Cooper, T.E. Heron, and W.L. Heward, Applied Behavior Analysis, Second Edition. Merrill/Prentice Hall.
• Pace, G.M., Ivancic, M.T., Edwards, G.L., Iwata, & Page, T.J. (1985). Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 249-255.
• Piazza, C.C., Fisher, W.W., Bowman, L.G., Blakely-Smith, A. (1999). Identifying and using reinforcers using choice paradigms. In P.M. Ghezzi, W.L. Williams, J.E. Carr(Eds.), Autism:Behavior Analytic Perspectives (pp. 102-108). Reno, NV: Context Press.
• Rosales-Ruiz, J., & Baer, D. M. (1997). Behavioral cusps: A developmental and pragmatic concept for behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 533-544
• Sigafoos, J., O’Reilly, M., Ganz, J.B., Lancioni, G.E., & Schlosser, R.W. (2005). Supported self-determination in AAC interventions by assessing preference for communication devices. Technology and Disability, 17,1-11.
• 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.
• Soto, G., Belfoire, P.J., Schlosser, C.H., & Haynes, C. (1993). Teaching specific requests: A comparative analysis of skill acquisition and preference using two augmentative and alternative communication aids. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 28, 169-178.
• Virues-ortega, J., Pritchard, K., Grant, R.L., North, S., Hurtado-parrado, C., Lee, M.S.H., Temple, B., Julio, F., Yu, C.T (2014). Clinical decision making and preference assessment for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. AmericalJounrla on Intellectual Devleopmental Disabilities, 119, 151-70. doi: 10.1352/1944-7558-119.2.151.
•