An Evaluation of a Brief Multiple-Stimulus Without Replacement Preference Assessment Conducted in an Electronic Pictorial Format
We compared the results of a brief electronic pictorial multiple-stimulus without replacement (EP-MSWO) preference assessment to a brief tangible MSWO preference assessment in five children with autism. Results of both assessments yielded a match between high preferred (HP) toys for four participants and low preferred toys for three participants. The overall correlation between assessments across participants was strong and statistically significant (ρ = .67, p < .01). A reinforcer assessment conducted with three participants confirmed HP toys identified in the EP-MSWO functioned as reinforcers.
KeywordsPreference assessment Reinforcer assessment Autism Technology
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
Matthew T. Brodhead declares he has no conflict of interest. Emily, A. Abel declares she has no conflict of interest. Monerah N. Al-Dubayan declares she has no conflict of interest. Lauren Brouwers declares she has no conflict of interest. Gina Warren Abston declares she has no conflict of interest. Mandy J. Rispoli declares she has no conflict of interest.
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 was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 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. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd/2004.01.006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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, 563–574. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2009.42-563.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 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. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1992.25-491.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Heinicke, M. (2014). Assessing the efficacy of pictorial preference assessments for children with developmental disabilities (Doctoral dissertation). https://etd.auburn.edu/handle/10415/4045
- Kagohara, D., van der Meer, L., Ramdoss, S., O’Reilly, M., Lancioni, T., Davis, T., et al. (2013). Using iPods and iPads in teaching programs for individuals with developmental disabilities: A systematic review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34, 147–156. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-519.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kang, S., O’Reilly, M., Lancioni, G., Falcomata, T. S., Sigafoos, J., & Xu, Z. (2013). Comparison of the predictive validity and consistency among preference assessment procedures: A review of the literature. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34, 1125–1133. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2012.12.021.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2005.76-04.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Sundberg, M. L. (2008). The verbal behavior milestones assessment and placement program: The VB-MAPP guide. Concord, CA: AVB Press.Google Scholar
- Tullis, C. A., Canella-Malone, H. I., Basbigill, A. R., Yeager, A., Flemming, C. V., Paybe, D., & Wu, P. F. (2011). Review of the choice and preference assessment literature for individuals with severe to profound disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 576–595.Google Scholar