Using High‐probability Foods to Increase the Acceptance of Low‐probability Foods

Abstract

Studies have evaluated a range of interventions to treat food selectivity in children with autism and related developmental disabilities. The high-probability instructional sequence is one intervention with variable results in this area. We evaluated the effectiveness of a high-probability sequence using 3 presentations of a preferred food on increasing acceptance in a child with autism who refused a few specific foods. The high-probability sequence increased acceptance of 3 foods. We then systematically faded the intervention for 2 foods.

Efficacy of interventions to improve feeding difficulties in children with autism spectrum disorders: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…On examination, there was a marked difference between studies in the number of foods targeted for therapy, with one being three foods over 44 sessions (Meier et al . ) and another being ‘multiple foods’ over 12–15 days (Paul et al . ) as examples.…”

Comparing two variations of the high‐probability instructional sequence to improve food consumption with a child with autism

“…Thus, it is possible that successful applications of the Hi P sequence, as well as other antecedent interventions, depend upon the presence or absence and severity of IMB. Indeed, successful applications of the Hi P sequence in the feeding literature have involved participants who do not engage IMB (e.g., Ewry & Fryling, ; Meier et al, ; Patel et al, ). The present study is consistent with this, as John engaged in very little IMB throughout the evaluation.…”

“…Importantly, Patel et al () noted that the participant did not engage in IMB during any of the conditions. Meier, Fryling, and Wallace () evaluated a Hi P sequence involving presentations of bites of preferred foods prior to the presentation of Lo P bites with a 3‐year old child with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Results showed that the Hi P sequence improved acceptance across three foods and that acceptance remained high, whereas the Hi P sequence was faded for two of the three foods.…”

Treatment of food selectivity: An evaluation of video modeling of contingencies

“…Two categories of behavioral interventions include antecedent‐based interventions and consequence‐based interventions. Antecedent‐based interventions to increase food consumption include simultaneous presentation (e.g., Buckley & Newchok, ; Kern & Marder, ; Piazza et al, ; Riordan, Iwata, Wohl, & Finney, ), stimulus fading (e.g., Luiselli, Ricciardi, & Gilligan, ; Patel, Piazza, Kelly, Ochsner, & Santana, ; Shore, Babbitt, Williams, Coe, & Snyder, ; Tiger & Hanley, ), utensil manipulations (e.g., Girolami, Boscoe, & Roscoe, ; Sharp, Harker, & Jaquess, ; Wilkins et al, ), high‐probability instructional sequences (e.g., Meier, Fryling, & Wallace, ; Patel et al, ; Penrod, Gardella, & Fernand, ), and noncontingent reinforcement (e.g., Allison et al, ; Reed et al, ). The efficacy of many antecedent‐based interventions is likely related to specific food aversions and the severity of the feeding problem (Seubert, Fryling, Wallace, Jiminez, & Meier, ; Sharp & Jaquess, ).…”