Advertisement

Behavior Analysis in Practice

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 335–342 | Cite as

Using Pictures Depicting App Icons to Conduct an MSWO Preference Assessment on a Tablet Device

  • Audrey N. HoffmannEmail author
  • Anna M. Brady
  • Ryan T. Paskins
  • Tyra P. Sellers
Research Article

Abstract

Identifying preferred content on tablet devices may be important when using such devices in programming. This study included six adults with disabilities and examined using laminated picture cards depicting application (app) icons to conduct multiple-stimulus without replacement (MSWO) preference assessments of iPad content. Following identification of preference hierarchies, we conducted reinforcer assessments to validate preference assessment results by demonstrating that selected apps functioned as reinforcers. We identified preference hierarchies for all participants, and the highest preferred app functioned as a reinforcer for a vocational task in five out of six participants’ reinforcer assessments.

Keywords

MSWO Preference assessment Tablet device 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Sandra Smith and staff members at the Cache Employment and Training Center for their collaboration throughout this project.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in this study 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. Brodhead, M. T., Al-Dubayan, M. N., Mates, M., Abel, E. A., & Brouwers, L. (2016). An evaluation of a brief video-based multiple-stimulus without replacement preference assessment. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 9(2), 160–164.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-015-0081-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cannella, H. I., O’Reilly, M. F., & Lancioni, G. E. (2005). Choice and preference assessment research with people with severe to profound developmental disabilities: A review of the literature. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 26, 1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2004.01.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carr, J. E., Nicolson, A. C., & Higbee, T. S. (2000). Evaluation of a brief multiple-stimulus preference assessment in a naturalistic context. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 353–357.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2000.33-353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chebli, S. S., & Lanovaz, M. J. (2016). Using computer tablets to assess preference for videos in children with autism. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 9(1), 50–53.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-016-0109-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clay, C. J., Samaha, A. L., Bloom, S. E., Bogoev, B. K., & Boyle, M. A. (2013). Assessing preference for social interactions. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(1), 362–371.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2012.07.028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clevenger, T. M., & Graff, R. B. (2005). Assessing object-to-picture and picture-to-object matching as a prerequisite skill for pictorial preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38(4), 543–547.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2005.161-04.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Conyers, C. M., 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.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2002.35-49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daly, E. J., Wells, N. J., Swanger-Gagné, M. S., Carr, J. E., Kunz, G. M., & Taylor, A. M. (2009). Evaluation of the multiple stimulus without replacement preference assessment method using activities as stimuli. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42(3), 563–574.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2009.42-563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DeLeon, I. G., & Iwata, B. A. (1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 519–533.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1996.29-519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fahmie, T. A., Iwata, B. A., & Jann, K. E. (2015). Comparison of edible and leisure reinforcers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48, 331–343.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Graff, R. B., & Gibson, L. (2003). Using pictures to assess reinforcers in individuals with developmental disabilities. Behavior Modification, 27(4), 470–483.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445503255602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heinicke, M. R., Carr, J. E., Pence, S. T., Zias, D. R., Valentino, A. L., & Falligant, J. M. (2016). Assessing the efficacy of pictorial preference assessments for children with developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 49, 848–868.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hoffmann, A. N., Samaha, A. L., Bloom, S. E., & Boyle, M. A. (2017). Preference and reinforcer efficacy of high- and low-tech items: A comparison of item type and duration of access. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50, 222–237.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kagohara, D. M., van der Meer, L., Ramdoss, S., O’Reilly, M. F., Lancioni, G. E., Davis, T. N., . . . Sigafoos, J. (2013). Using iPods® and iPads® in teaching programs for individuals with developmental disabilities: A systematic review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34, 147–156. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2012.07.027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nix, L. D. (2016). An evaluation of a stimulus preference assessment of iPad applications for young children with autism (Unpublished master’s thesis). Utah State University, Logan, Utah.Google Scholar
  16. 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(2), 201–212.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1996.29-201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Paramore, N. W., & Higbee, T. S. (2005). An evaluation of a brief multiple stimulus preference assessment with adolescents with emotional behavioral disorders in an educational setting. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38, 399–403.  https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2005.76-04.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Parsons, M. B., Harper, V. N., Jensen, J. M., & Reid, D. H. (1997). Assisting older adults with severe disabilities in expressing leisure preferences: A protocol for determining choice-making skills. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 18(2), 113–126.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0891-4222(96)00044-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Virués-Ortega, J., Pritchard, K., Grant, R. L., North, S., Hurtado-Parrado, C., Lee, M. S., . . . Yu, C. T. (2014). Clinical decision making and preference assessment for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 119, 151–170. doi: https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-119.2.151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Audrey N. Hoffmann
    • 1
    Email author
  • Anna M. Brady
    • 2
  • Ryan T. Paskins
    • 2
    • 3
  • Tyra P. Sellers
    • 2
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of EducationNorthern Vermont University-JohnsonJohnsonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Special Education and RehabilitationUtah State UniversityLoganUSA
  3. 3.Department of Rehabilitation and CounselingUniversity of Wisconsin-StoutMenomonieUSA
  4. 4.Behavior Analyst Certification BoardLittletonUSA

Personalised recommendations