Two Measures of Preference During Forced‐choice Assessments

Abstract

A forced-choice preference assessment was conducted in which two dependent measures were used to select preferred stimuli: (a) approach responding and (b) latency to the first aberrant response. Stimuli identified as preferred based on both dependent measures were then evaluated during treatment. The results suggested that latency may be a useful measure in the selection of preferred stimuli during forced-choice assessments.DESCRIPTORS: forced choice, preference assessment, hand mouthingOne method that has been successfully used to identify reinforcers for persons with disabilities is the forced-choice procedure (Fisher et al., 1992). This procedure involves two steps. First, stimuli are presented in pairs, and preferred stimuli are selected based on the relative frequency of an approach response. Second, the results obtained during Step 1 are validated by demonstrating that stimuli approached most frequently serve as potent reinforcers for other responses. In the present investigation, we examined an additional dependent measure for identifying preferred stimuli during forced-choice assessments: the latency between stimulus presentation and the first occurrence of aberrant behavior. We provide two case examples in which approach behavior and latency were used to select preferred stimuli. The stimuli selected as preferred were then used as positive reinforcers during treatment.METHOD: Subjects and settings. The participants were Rick, a 7-year-old male, and Trina, a 3-year-old female, both diagnosed with profound mental retardation. Rick was also diagnosed with significant hypotonia and was legally blind. Both children engaged in hand-and object-mouthing behavior, and Rick also engaged in eye gouging and repetitive hand wringing. For both children, aberrant behavior occurred throughout the day, and a maintaining consequence was not identified during functional analyses.For Rick, sessions were conducted by unit staff in a classroom located on a hospital inpatient unit. For Trina, sessions were conducted in the living room of her home. Trina's evaluation was completed by her mother with direct consultation from the first author.Forced choice. Sessions were videotaped and data were collected on approach to stimuli and latency to first aberrant response. Interobserver agreement was computed by dividing agreements by agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 100%. Interobserver agreement was assessed during 80% of the stimulus presentations. For latency, an agreement was scored if the time recorded across observers was within 1 s. Interobserver agreement for both measures was 100%.The children were exposed to four stimuli (Rick: ball, vibrator, radio, and stuffed animal; Trina: See & Say®, pop-up toy, houseshaped block sorter, and ball-shaped block sorter) using a modification of the forced-choice method described by Fisher et al. (1992). At least 15 presentations of each stimulus were completed (range, 15 to 25). The children were provided with access to the stimuli they approached until either an aberrant r...

Self-Determination for Individuals with the Most Severe Disabilities: Moving beyond Chimera

“…Derby et al (1995) conducted a forced-choice assessment by using stimuli that include a ball, vibrator, radio, stuffed animals, pop-up toys, and block sorters. The types of stimuli that may have more impact on a person's performance and quality of life are not included in these examples of assessment protocols (e.g., control of daily events, outdoor activities, being with preferred people, and having free access to a refrigerator).…”

An Analysis of Choice Making in the Assessment of Young Children With Severe Behavior Problems

“…A second area of investigation on choice making used concurrent stimulus presentations as a means of generating hypotheses regarding the reinforcing properties of specific stimuli in the individual's environment (e.g., Derby et al, 1995;Fisher et al, 1992;Piazza, Fisher, Hagopian, Bowman, & Toole, 1996;Sigafoos & Dempsey, 1992;Smith, Iwata, & Shore, 1995). Reinforcer assessment procedures that provide choices among stimuli are considered to approximate natural contexts in which individuals have an opportunity to select between concurrently available items or activities (Northup, George, Jones, Broussard, & Vollmer, 1996).…”

An Analogue Evaluation of Environmental Enrichment: The Role of Stimulus Preference

“…For example, Derby et al (1995) used latency to aberrant behavior as a dependent measure to help in identifying preferred items. By delivering the identified items using a differential-reinforcement-ofother-behavior (DRO) schedule, decreases in aberrant behavior were obtained.…”