A replication of preference displacement research in children with autism spectrum disorder

Abstract

The purpose of this paper was to replicate previous research on preference displacement with edible and leisure stimuli. In the present study, the experimenters evaluated preference displacement in 25 children with autism spectrum disorder using combined multiple stimulus without replacement preference assessments that consisted of highly preferred edible and leisure stimuli. In addition, the experimenters used a block randomization procedure to evaluate if assessment order influenced displacement outcomes. The experimenters observed patterns of complete displacement by edible stimuli for four participants and complete displacement by leisure stimuli for two participants; assessment order did not influence outcomes. The results and implications are discussed.

A methodological review of preference displacement research

“…Therefore, these studies were also included in our review. Finally, we included Sipila‐Thomas et al (in press) in this review because a majority of the authors on that paper participated in conducting and writing this current review.…”

“…First, combined assessment results were divided into three main categories: complete displacement, partial displacement,1 and no displacement. Outcome categories are based on definitions first described by Carter and Zonneveld (2020) and later refined by Sipila‐Thomas et al (in press) and are described in more detail below. If complete or partial displacement were scored, we also identified whether edible or leisure stimuli were displaced in the array.…”

“…If a participant selected either all leisure stimuli or edible stimuli as their top selections in the combined assessment, their pattern of responding was defined as indicating complete displacement . If a participant selected three edible or leisure stimuli as their first, second, and third selections in the combined assessment for studies that included four edible and four leisure stimuli in combined assessments (Andakyan et al, 2016; Bojak & Carr, 1999; Carter & Zonneveld, 2020; Conine & Vollmer, 2019; Fahmie et al, 2015; Virués Ortega et al, 2012; Sipila‐Thomas et al, in press; Slanzi et al, 2020), their pattern of responding was defined as indicating partial displacement. If a participant selected four edible or leisure stimuli as their first, second, third, and forth selections in the combined assessment for studies that included five edible and five leisure stimuli in combined assessments (Clark et al, 2020), their pattern of responding was also defined as indicating partial displacement.…”

“…The second purpose of this study was to examine the results of each reviewed study in the context of any methodological differences that may exist. While some of the reviewed studies (e.g., DeLeon et al, 1997; Fahmie, Iwata, & Jann, 2015; Clark et al, 2020) addressed purposes beyond preference displacement (e.g., reinforcer efficacy), the current review focused on preference assessment results to evaluate patterns of preference displacement using established definitions of patterns of displacement (Carter & Zonneveld, 2020; Sipila‐Thomas et al, in press). Such an examination may allow us to evaluate the extent to which any methodological differences may at least partially account for differences in displacement results.…”

“…Carter and Zonneveld (2020) described a post hoc analysis where they proposed general patterns of displacement. Sipila‐Thomas et al (in press) extended upon definitions used by Carter and Zonneveld and used those definitions as dependent variables to evaluate their study outcomes. A summary of displacement study outcomes using established definitions of patterns of displacement may allow for a more thorough and complete understanding of this body of research.…”