10/23/2014

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

• May be exposed environment which limits

familiarity with novel items

‐Piazza, Fisher, Bowman & Blakey-Smith (1999)

1
 10/23/2014

Why is Preference of Reinforcers

Important for Learners with ASD?

• The effectiveness of skill acquisition and

behavior reduction programs depend the
identification 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)

2
 10/23/2014

Preference Assessments: Indirect

3
 10/23/2014

Fisher, Piazza, Bowman, & Amari (1996)

Indirect Preference Assessments

• Examples: Interviews & surveys

– Pros
• Easyy & quick
q
– Cons
• Not as accurate as empirical preference
assessments

Direct Assessments in Identifying

Stimulus Preference
• Single-stimulus
• Paired Stimulus
• Multiple Stimulus Without
Replacement (MSWO)
• Duration-based preference
assessment
• Free-operant

4
 10/23/2014

Single-stimulus Assessment

• In general,
– Identify items to be assessed
– Present one item at a time
– Allow
Allo 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 Presentation
Item Response Notes

Fritos C

Chip C

Cookie C

Ritz C

Water C

5
 10/23/2014

Single-stimulus presentation

• Benefits:
– Quick & easy
– Good method to introduce novel stimuli
– Does 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.”
• Once
O your llearner has
h selected
l t d an item,
it
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
– Represent choice
h i
– If your learner selects 1 of the 2, allow engagement

6
 10/23/2014

Paired-Stimulus Preference Assessment

• If your learners reaches for both items, block

access and represent trial

• Run no more than 20-25

20 25 trials at a time

• Discontinue if your learner makes No

Response across 3 consecutive trials

Paired Preference Assessment

Trial Left Right NR (No-response) or R (Refusal)
Stimuli
1 1 2
1. Robot
2 3 4
2. Drum
3 5 6
3. Ball Toy 4 7 8
4. Hurricane 5 2 3

5 Ipad
5. I d 6 4 5

7 8 2
6. Musical book
8 6 7
7. See n say
9 3 1
8. Playdough
10 4 2

Paired-Stimulus Preference Assessment

100
90
80
70
ent Selected

60
50
Perce

40
30
20
10
0
Ipad Water tube Robot Drum

7
 10/23/2014

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)
– Say “Pick one,” or “Choose”

MSWO
– If participant:
• Selects: allow engagement for 10-30 sec or until
consumed
• Approached mores than 1 item, block

– Otherwise,
Oth i
• 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

8
 10/23/2014

MSWO
1. Turtle Shape 2. Don’t Break the 3. Farm House 4. Work Bench
Sorter Ice
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%

Workbench and 1/2 50%

hammer
Turtle shape sorter 1/3 33%

Race track 1/4 25%

• Average across all sessions

Results

100%

80%
elected

60%
Percent Se

40%

20%

0%
Don’t break the Workbench and Turtle shape Race track
Ice hammer sorter
Items

9
 10/23/2014

MSWO
– Benefits:
• More accurate than Single-stimulus preference assessment
• Easier to and less time consuming than paired-preference
assessment
– 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
100

80
Percent EEngaged

60

40

20

0
Alligator Xylophone Electronic Drum

10
 10/23/2014

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 items
– Limited
Li i d utility
ili for
f edibles
dibl

Free-operant Preference
Assessment
• Allow learner to explore items within an
environment
• Teacher/clinician does not present and/or
manipulate presentation of materials
• Record duration and frequency of which
items/activities engaged

11
 10/23/2014

Free-operant Preference
Assessment
600
550
500
Total Duration in Seconds

450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Trampoline Figurines Books

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
– Minimallyy conducted annuallyy
– Mini-assessments can be conducted daily☺
• More often:
– If student has a small pool of reinforcers
– Lack of progress with skill acquisition
programs

12
 10/23/2014

Choice Books

Prior to beginning. . . .

• Consider the type most appropriate for your

learner
• Gather information
• Gather
G h S Stimuli
i li
• Conduct your preference assessment
• Calculate results

Clinical guidelines. . .

NO,
Can the student
Single-stimulus
choose?
assess e t
assessment

Yes,
Paired-stimulus
MSWO

13
 10/23/2014

Clinical guidelines. . .

Does the student NO,

have pic to Must use
object/object to representative
pic
i matching?
hi ? i
items

Yes,
Picture format

Clinical guidelines. . .
Does the student
NO, Super! Life
have behavior
is good!
problems related
to access
accessingg
tangibles?
g
Yes,
Paired-stimulus or
MSWO not
appropriate. .use
duration-based
assessments

Other considerations. .

Student grabs
Student shows a The student stops
more than one
side bias? responding?
item?

Student has
Student have
difficulty Keep categories
physical
returning item separate. .
impairments?
selected?

14
 10/23/2014

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)

15
 10/23/2014

Preference for Social Consequences

Preference for Social Consequences

Maintenance of Social Consequences

1 week 2 weeks 3 weeks

16
 10/23/2014

Preferred Social Consequences

• Advantages
– Great way to assess sensitivity to social
consequences
– Simultaneously identified preference and
reinforcing 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
alternatives, must be able to perform each
alternative, and must be able to
experience the natural consequence of the
chosen alternative.” (p.674)

-Martinez-Diaz, Freeman, Nomand, & Heron (2007)

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

17
 10/23/2014

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
Additional
i l researchh to better
b inform
i f clinical
li i l
practice:
– Social reinforers
– Choice of interventions and other areas

Thank you for your attention!

• Any further questions?

• Email:
• rdebar@caldwell.edu

• Special thank you to , future behavior

analysts☺

18
 10/23/2014

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 off Applied
pp Behavior Analysis,
y 29, 519-532.
• 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. Americal
Jounrla on Intellectual Devleopmental Disabilities, 119, 151-70. doi: 10.1352/1944-7558-119.2.151.
•

19