The Effects of Choice and Task Preference on the Work Performance of Adults With Severe Disabilities

Abstract

We evaluated the effects of choice versus the assignment of tasks of varying preferences on the work engagement of adults with severe disabilities. The combined results of two experiments suggest that the relative preference for a task may be an important variable in the effectiveness of choice for some individuals.DESCRIPTORS: choice, preference, severe disabilities, work performanceOne benefit of choice making for adults with severe disabilities is increased work engagement (Parsons, Reid, Reynolds, & Bumgarner, 1990). However, the role of "choosing" relative to obtaining a preferred outcome is unclear. Understanding the variables that affect the benefits of choice making is important if we are to maximize choice-making strategies for persons with limited expression. In Experiment 1, we attempted to replicate the results of Parsons et al. (1990) regarding the effects of task assignment versus choice on time on task when task preferences varied. In Experiment 2, we examined the effects of choice on work performance when task preferences were held constant.METHOD: In Experiment 1, 3 adults with severe or profound mental retardation participated. Observations were conducted in either a mailroom enclave or a segregated training center during the typical work routine. Each condition lasted 15 min. On-task behavior (see Parsons et al., 1990) was recorded using a 15-s momentary time-sampling procedure.Procedures were similar to those of Parsons et al. (1990). The participants' relative preference for five familiar work tasks (stamping, stuffing envelopes, stuffing folders, labeling, sealing envelopes) was determined by Mithaug and Hanawalt's (1978) pair-wise assessment. One high-preference task (i.e., one that was selected on at least 75% of the pairings) and one low-preference task (i.e., one that was selected on no more than 25% of the pairings) were identified for each participant. The effects of the following three conditions were evaluated using a multielement design, counterbalanced across sessions: (a) assignment of a high-preference task, (b) assignment of a low-preference task, and (c) choice between the high-and low-preference tasks.In Experiment 2, 5 adults participated, including the 3 from Experiment 1. Settings, tasks, observations, and procedures were the same as in Experiment 1, with the exception of task preference. The participants' preferences for the tasks were evaluated (or reevaluated if they had participated in Experiment 1) using the same assessment strategy. Two tasks within the categories of low-preference or moderate-preference (selected from 26% to 74% of the pairings) tasks were then selected for each participant. Using tasks of similar preference allowed us to evaluate choice independent from obtaining a preferred outcome.The effects of choice (between tasks of the same preference category) and no choice (assignment of one of the tasks) on on-task behavior were evaluated using a multielement design counterbalanced across sessions. Interobserver agreement, calculated on an interval-by-int...

Effects of Reinforcement Choice on Task Responding in Individuals With Developmental Disabilities

“…Preference was nearly equivalent in the choice and no-choice conditions because the partic-REINFORCEMENT CHOICE ipants generally selected the high-preference items during choice sessions. Bambara et al (1994) replicated these results and observed no differences in on-task behavior during choice and no-choice conditions for 3 of 4 participants. Kennedy and Haring (1993) also obtained inconsistent findings when leisure activities provided during no-choice sessions were identical (i.e., yoked) to those selected by participants during choice sessions.…”

“…In previous studies (e.g., Dyer, 1987;Mason et al, 1989), choice-making opportunities improved responding when individuals' preference for available tasks or reinforcers was not held constant across choice-and nochoice conditions (i.e., when the no-choice REINFORCEMENT CHOICE condition did not produce access to the same stimuli provided in the choice condition). In contrast, choice did not influence responding (e.g., Smith et al, 1995) or produced inconsistent outcomes (Bambara et al, 1994;Kennedy & Haring, 1993;Vaughn & Horner, 1997) in studies that contained a control for preference in the no-choice condition. Thus, access to preferred stimuli rather than to choice-making opportunities per se may be most critical when establishing high rates of task performance in some individuals with severe to profound retardation.…”

“…Results of previous studies have shown that individuals with autism or severe to profound retardation engaged in more on-task behavior and less inappropriate behavior when they were provided with self-selected rather than experimenter-or teacher-selected tasks (Bambara, Ager, & Koger, 1994;Parsons, Reid, Reynolds, & We thank Wayne Fisher for his assistance in the development of this study.…”

“…That is, changes in behavior associated with choice may not be attributable solely to the effects of preference. In most studies on choice, however, participants' preference for the items (e.g., tasks, reinforcers) was not held constant across choice and no-choice conditions, and in studies that contained a control for the effects of preference in the no-choice condition (i.e., by insuring that the no-choice condition produced access to the same stimuli available in the choice condition), choice did not influence responding Smith, Iwata, & Shore, 1995) or produced inconsistent outcomes (Bambara et al, 1994;Kennedy & Haring, 1993;Vaughn & Horner, 1997). , for example, observed similar levels of on-task behavior when individuals with severe to moderate mental retardation could choose between high-and low-preference tasks (choice condition) and when they were assigned a highpreference task (no-choice condition).…”

Self-Determined Employment Preference for Youth in Transition from School to Work in Rural Areas

“…Therefore, LEAs are accountable for demonstrating their efforts to assist the youth in self-determined post-school goals, including those related to employment. Third, researchers report identification of preferred employment is associated with improved work outcomes (Mithaug & Hanawalt, 1978) and reduced problem behavior (Bambara, Ager, & Koger, 1994).…”