Response‐restriction Analysis: I. Assessment of Activity Preferences

Abstract

We used procedures based on response-restriction (RR) analysis to assess vocational and leisure activity preferences for 3 adults with developmental disabilities. To increase the efficiency of the analysis relative to that reported in previous research, we used criteria that allowed activities to be restricted at the earliest point at which a preference could be determined. Results obtained across two consecutive RR assessments showed some variability in overall preference rankings but a high degree of consistency for highly ranked items. Finally, we compared results of the RR assessment with those of an extended free-operant assessment and found that the RR assessment yielded (a) more differentiated patterns of preference and (b) more complete information about engagement with all of the target activities.

The effects of preference assessment type on problem behavior

“…However, it is worth noting that the FO assessment failed to identify a complete hierarchy for Brady, Sofie, and Mason as they never selected some items. Similar results from an FO assessment were reported when activities were evaluated for adults with disabilities (Hanley, Iwata, Lindberg, & Conners, ). The PS and MSWO assessments always resulted in complete hierarchies, partly because they required participants to encounter each stimulus.…”

Increasing Pretend Toy Play of Toddlers With Disabilities in an Inclusive Setting

“…Given the low frequencies of pretend toy play (as well as inconsistent presence in classroom interest centers with pretend-play toys) during baseline, however, it seems unlikely that the children would have experienced sufficient reinforcement from praise to account for the amount of behavior change observed. Alternatively, increased familiarity with the toys that likely resulted from staff prompting pretend toy play may have been responsible for the observed increases (e.g., Hanley, Iwata, Lindberg, & Conners, 2003). Limiting choices of interest centers during the sessions to the two that were equipped with toys designed for pretend play may also have contributed to the increases.…”

The role of context in the evaluation of reinforcer efficacy: Implications for the preference assessment outcomes

“…These include: (1) direct observation of a client’s interaction with an array of stimuli, (2) data collection on that interaction, (3) a comparison of relative interaction with the stimuli under observation. Existing preference assessments differ in the manner in which stimuli are presented (e.g., singly or in pairs; Fisher et al, 1992; Pace, Ivancic, Edwards, Iwata, & Page, 1985), the manner in which data are collection (e.g., duration recording or trial-by-trial choices; DeLeon & Iwata, 1996; Roane, Vollmer, Ringdahl, & Marcus, 1998), and the range of stimuli identified as differentially preferred (Hanley, Iwata, Lindberg, & Conners, 2003). …”