A Comparison of Two Procedures for Assessing Preference in a Classroom Setting

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare a method of assessing preference within a large group format to individual preference assessments. Individual preference assessments were conducted by presenting an array of four edible stimuli to a participant and allowing the participant to select a preferred stimulus, with stimuli removed from the array based on selection criteria. Group preference assessments were conducted in a classroom of 19 students, with all students responding simultaneously to a prompt to identify a preferred stimulus using Plickers-unique Quick Response code cards that are read by an accompanying smartphone app. During the group procedure, stimuli in the array were restricted on the individual participant level. Results indicated that the group procedure was a valid and rapid method of assessing preference within a group of individuals. Although additional research is required, practitioners and researchers may consider use of Plickers as a promising means of evaluating preference within a group setting. Keywords Individual reference assessment. Group preference assessment Group contingencies are frequently utilized to modify student behavior at a school-wide and class-wide level. For example, a teacher may use the Good Behavior Game, in which students may earn points that allow access to a reinforcer (Barrish, Wolf, & Saunders, 1969). At the school level, students may earn tokens for exhibiting desirable behavior, which may then be exchanged later for backup reinforcers (Bradshaw, Reinke, Browns, Blevins, & Leaf, 2008). School-based group contingencies are time and resource efficient, as a single reward is typically delivered to all members of a group (Gresham & Gresham, 1982); however, the effectiveness of such programs for any individual student or group of students is dependent upon idiosyncratic preferences for stimuli delivered as contingent rewards (Wehman, 1976). Put another way, access to edibles, tangibles, or activities available through programs like the Good Behavior Game may function as a reinforcer for some students' behavior, whereas such access may not function as a reinforcer for other students' behavior-reducing its effectiveness in modifying group behavior. Although

The use of automated data collection in applied behavior analytic research: A systematic review.

“…Among the different types of apparatus used for applied research, researchers used the computer most often at 43.86% ( n = 50) of the 114 apparatuses that were used within the 100 applied studies that were included in the current review. Studies that used computers primarily utilized programmable software such as Microsoft’s Visual Basic (e.g., Lovett & Rehfeldt, 2014; Varella & de Souza, 2015); preprogrammed computer software that collected the DV automatically (e.g., Headsprout Early Learning for Grindle et al, 2013; a custom match-to-sample program for Brogård-Antonsen & Arntzen, 2019); or applications that run on mobile devices (e.g., Motiv8 for Martner & Dallery, 2019; Plickers for Radley et al, 2019).…”