Multiple-Stimulus without Replacement Preference Assessment: Reducing the Number of Sessions to Identify Preferred Stimuli

Richman, David M.; Barnard‐Brak, Lucy; Abby, Layla; Grubb, Laura M.

doi:10.1007/s10882-016-9485-1

Cited by 14 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The rank-order correlation coefficients (Figure 1) indicate that the hierarchies produced by either the first session or the first two sessions of a three-session MSWO are often strongly correlated with the hierarchy produced by all three sessions. Specifically, the average et al (2000), Raetz et al (2013), andRichman et al (2016). Thus, an analysis of the present data according to rank-order correlations suggests that a one-or two-session MSWO may allow for similar conclusions as a three-session MSWO, but with fewer sessions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 59%

“…Third, we analyzed whether the aforementioned findings varied in relation to the type of stimuli included in each assessment (Richman et al, 2016). Table 2 includes the results of the same analyses as Figures 1 and 2, but according to the type of stimuli included in the assessment.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, the original MSWO procedures consisted of five sessions (DeLeon & Iwata, 1996), whereas some more recent studies have used MSWOs consisting of only three sessions (e.g., Kronfli et al, 2020;Slanzi et al, 2019). Previous research has indicated that three-session MSWOs effectively identify highly preferred stimuli that are reinforcing (Carr et al, 2000;Higbee et al, 2000;Tullis et al, 2012), produce hierarchies that are strongly correlated with five-session MSWO hierarchies (Richman et al, 2016), and often identify the same highest-preferred stimuli (Graff & Ciccone, 2002;Tullis et al, 2012) as a five-session MSWO. Thus, three-session MSWOs generally produce the same outcomes as a five-session assessment in a more efficient manner.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, Carr et al (2000) and Raetz et al (2013) calculated Spearman rank-order correlation coefficients to compare one-session MSWO hierarchies to three-session MSWO hierarchies, and both studies reported strong correlations between the one-and three-session preference hierarchies across all participants. Similarly, Richman et al (2016) calculated correlation coefficients between hierarchies produced by one-and five-session MSWOs. These authors reported moderate-to-strong correlations between one-session and five-session hierarchies when the array included only leisure items, but more variable correlations when edible items were used.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, including both of these measures in the same study could clarify the extent to which findings vary as a function of the dependent measure used. Finally, only one study (Richman et al 2016) has evaluated whether the type of stimuli (i.e., edible or leisure) might be related to the correspondence between one-or two-session assessments and three-session assessments. Therefore, additional research is needed to replicate this finding, and evaluate whether stimulus type meaningfully affects the outcomes of one-or two-session MSWOs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Comparing the results of one‐session, two‐session, and three‐session MSWO preference assessments

Conine

Morris

Kronfli

et al. 2021

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The multiple-stimulus-without-replacement (MSWO) preference assessment is commonly used in behavior-analytic research and practice. As originally published, the MSWO included 5 sessions in an effort to confirm stimulus preferences. Subsequent researchers have evaluated the validity of MSWO outcomes when the assessment is abbreviated. Generally, valid outcomes have been noted for 3-session MSWOs (that is, the outcomes match those of the 5-session version), while validity outcomes for 1-or 2-session MSWOs have varied across studies. The current study utilized data from 157 MSWO preference assessments conducted in previously published research with 49 total participants and analyzed the extent to which 1-session or 2-session variations of those assessments would have yielded similar outcomes as a 3-session assessment. Results indicate that the hierarchies produced by both abbreviated formats were strongly correlated with those produced by a 3-session assessment. However, neither 1-nor 2-session MSWOs reliably identified the same highest-preferred stimuli as a 3-session MSWO.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 59%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Comparing the results of one‐session, two‐session, and three‐session MSWO preference assessments

Conine

Morris

Kronfli

et al. 2021

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Do persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities prefer to save the best for last in an MSWO? A preliminary investigation

Castillo

Frank‐Crawford

Liesfeld

et al. 2022

Behavioral Interventions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The multiple stimulus without replacement (MSWO) preference assessment is commonly used to identify potential reinforcers. In this arrangement, individuals can choose the order in which they consume edibles or activities. The item selected first is often designated the highest preferred, and the item selected last is often designated the least preferred. Scattered reports suggest that some individuals may save the best for last in an MSWO. Despite these reports, few systematic evaluations of “saving the best for last” in the MSWO have been conducted. We examined this phenomenon using an MSWO and progressive‐ratio‐reinforcer assessment. Evidence of “saving the best for last” was obtained for one of four individuals across assessments involving edibles and leisure activities, respectively.

show abstract

Evaluating convergent validity between RAISD and MSWO rankings across informants

Jeglum

Melanson

O’Brien

2023

Behavioral Interventions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Reinforcer Assessment for Individuals with Severe Disabilities (RAISD) and multiple‐stimulus without replacement preference assessment (MSWO) are evidence‐based tools used to determine preferences indirectly through interview and observation of choice making, respectively. Often, the RAISD is used to inform the stimulus array of the MSWO. However, reports frequently vary between informants. This can lead to discrepant identification of putative reinforcers and therefore has the potential for weaker or ineffective reinforcement‐based treatments. The purpose of this study was to compare RAISD and MSWO outcomes across informants (adolescent, caregiver, and teacher) and evaluate the convergent validity between the two measures. The results indicated that across participants, RAISD and MSWO results rarely produced convergent validity. Implications for practitioners and researchers are discussed.

show abstract

Multiple-Stimulus without Replacement Preference Assessment: Reducing the Number of Sessions to Identify Preferred Stimuli

Cited by 14 publications

References 11 publications

Comparing the results of one‐session, two‐session, and three‐session MSWO preference assessments

Comparing the results of one‐session, two‐session, and three‐session MSWO preference assessments

Do persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities prefer to save the best for last in an MSWO? A preliminary investigation

Evaluating convergent validity between RAISD and MSWO rankings across informants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About