A systematic review of research on stability of preference assessment outcomes across repeated administrations

Abstract

A key component to any successful intervention aimed at increasing appropriate behavior for individuals with disabilities is the identification of potential reinforcers (Verriden & Roscoe, 2016). Preference assessments allow for the identification of specific preferred items for each individual; however, little is known about the stability of preference over time. The purpose of this review was to synthesize results from 20 studies that conducted two or more preference assessments, at least 24 h apart, and analyze the stability of preference assessment outcomes across repeated assessment administrations. This paper investigated the impact of the inter-assessment interval (IAI; i.e., how often assessments were conducted), preference assessment format, and stimulus type (i.e., leisure items/activities, edibles, social interaction) on the stability of preference assessment outcomes. Results suggest that, across repeated administration, preference is most stable at brief IAIs (8-30 days) and when using the pairedstimulus format (Fisher et al., 1992). Implications for practitioners and future research are discussed.

An evaluation of preference stability within MSWO preference assessments for children with autism

“…Two ways to measure preference stability are to evaluate shifts in preference over time with Spearman rank‐order correlation coefficients (Spearman's ) or Pearson correlation coefficients (Pearson's ), which range on a scale from the critical r value of −1 (perfect negative correlation) to the critical r value of 1 (perfect positive correlation). Previous research on preference stability has defined stability for both the Spearman's and Pearson's as meeting or exceeding the critical r value of .58 (Hanley et al, 2006; Kelley et al, 2016; MacNaul et al, 2021), or meeting or exceeding the critical r value of .60 (Butler & Graff, 2021; Morris & Vollmer, 2020; Verriden & Roscoe, 2016). Although researchers often report stability in preference across preference assessment administrations (Hanley et al, 2006; Kelley et al, 2016), more recently published studies show these patterns of stability are idiosyncratic across participants (Butler & Graff, 2021; Morris & Vollmer, 2020).…”

Owner‐implemented paired‐stimulus food preference assessments for companion dogs

“…Future studies should also assess how frequently the preference assessment needs to be performed once trained and whether any maintenance is required. For example, human preferences are known to change across time, resulting in a general recommendation to perform additional preference assessments every 30 days (MacNaul et al, 2021), whereas no such data exist to inform recommendations for dogs. This may be especially important if novel foods are being used, given that novelty can affect preferences in animals (Callon et al, 2017; Stasiak, 2002).…”

The beginning of a friendship: Teaching individuals with autism to identify shared interests

“…The experimenters attempted to pair conversation partners with the most genuine interest or knowledge of the participants' interests to increase the value and authenticity of the interactions. As documented in the literature, preferences can be unstable with changes in an environmental context (Hanley et al, 2006) and over time (see MacNaul et al, 2020, for a review). This was observed with Paul and Taz and required additional conversation partners.…”