Advertisement

Journal of Behavioral Education

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 375–394 | Cite as

Identifying Community-Based Reinforcers of Adults with Autism and Related Disabilities

  • Daniel A. Almeida
  • Ronald Allen
  • Russell W. Maguire
  • Kaitlin Maguire
Original Paper

Abstract

A forced-choice preference assessment using pictures and no access upon selection was used to determine preferences for community-based activities with 4 young adults with autism and intellectual disability. High- and low-preference activities were then provided as delayed consequences, using a token economy, for completion of vocational tasks in a concurrent operants paradigm. All participants responded to the contingency associated with earning the high-preference activity and away from the contingency associated with earning the low-preference activity. The results suggest that a pictorial assessment without access is a valid method for identifying community-based activities that will function as reinforcers. This efficient protocol could improve treatment efficacy in applied settings.

Keywords

Preference assessment Concurrent operants assessment Reinforcer assessment 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Ashley Williams, Melissa Kelly, Izumi Nishida, and Lisa Goldthwaite for their assistance with data collection and interobserver agreement data. This research was based on a doctoral dissertation by the first author toward completion of a Ph.D. degree in Applied Behavior Analysis.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Daniel Almeida declares that he has no conflict of interest. Ronald Allen declares that he has no conflict of interest. Russell Maguire declares he has no conflict of interest. Kaitlin Maguire declares she has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Clevenger, T. M., & Graff, R. B. (2005). Assessing object-to-picture and picture-to-object matching as prerequisite skills for pictorial preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38, 543–547.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Cohen-Almeida, D., Graff, R. B., & Ahearn, W. H. (2000). A comparison of verbal and tangible stimulus preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 329–334.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Conyers, C., Doole, A., Vause, T., Harapiak, S., Yu, D. C. T., & Martin, G. L. (2002). Predicting the relative efficacy of three presentation methods for assessing preferences of persons with developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 49–58.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. DeLeon, I. G., Frank, M. A., & Gregory, M. K. (2009). On the correspondence between preference assessment outcomes and progressive-ratio schedule assessments of stimulus value. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42(3), 729–733.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Graff, R. B., Gibson, L., & Galiatsatos, T. G. (2006). The impact of high- and low-preference stimuli on vocational and academic performances of youths with severe disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39, 131–135.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Green, C. W., Reid, D. H., Canipe, V. S., & Gardner, S. M. (1991). A comprehensive evaluation of reinforcer identification processes for persons with profound multiple handicaps. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 537–552.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Groskreutz, M. P., & Graff, R. B. (2009). Evaluating pictorial preference assessment: The effect of differential outcomes on preference assessment results. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 3, 113–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hanley, G. P. (2010). Toward effective and preferred programming: A case for objective measurement of social validity with recipients of behavior-change programs. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 3, 13–21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Lee, M. S. H., Yu, C. T., Martin, T. L., & Martin, G. L. (2010). On the relation between reinforcer efficacy and preference. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43(1), 95–100.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Northup, J., George, T., Jones, K., Broussard, C., & Vollmer, T. R. (1996). A comparison of reinforcer assessment methods: The utility of verbal and pictorial choice procedures. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 201–212.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Pace, G. M., Ivancic, M. T., Edwards, G. L., Iwata, B. A., & Page, T. J. (1985). Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 249–255.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Reid, D. H., Parsons, M. B., & Green, C. W. (1998). Identifying work preferences among individuals with severe multiple disabilities prior to beginning supported work. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 281–285.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Tessing, J. L., Napolitano, D. A., McAdam, D. B., DiCesare, A., & Axelrod, S. (2006). The effects of providing access to stimuli following choice making during vocal preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39, 501–506.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel A. Almeida
    • 1
  • Ronald Allen
    • 2
  • Russell W. Maguire
    • 2
  • Kaitlin Maguire
    • 3
  1. 1.Newton, MA Public SchoolsUMASS-BostonNewtonUSA
  2. 2.Simmons CollegeBostonUSA
  3. 3.Advances Learning CenterWatertownUSA

Personalised recommendations