Reinforcer Preference Assessment: A useful tool for the School Psychologist

1
Reinforcer Preference AssessmentA useful tool
for the School Psychologist

• Samuel Thompson, M.Ed., LSSP
• Texas Tech University School Psychology
  Specialization
• SELCO SSA
• Brook Roberts, M.A., LSSP
• SELCO SSA

2
INTRODUCTION

• Reinforcer Any stimuli that, when presented,
  increases the future frequency of the behavior
  that immediately precedes it.
• In schools, positive reinforcement is considered
  the cornerstone of effective behavior change and
  management.
• Positive reinforcement is impossible if the
  stimulus selected to serve as a reinforcer is not
  actually reinforcing to the student.

3
INTRODUCTION

• School Psychologists are frequent behavioral
  consultants
• Last line of defense
• When bringing in outside consultants, time is
  money
• Special Education directors will be happy with
  any steps the School Psychologist can take in
  order to save time with the consultant
• The first step is typically a reinforcer
  preference assessment

4
INTRODUCTION

• What students are we talking about?
• Those requiring substantial behavioral support
• Any student exhibiting aggression or property
  destruction
• Students with frequent BIP modifications or
  related manifestation determination reviews
• Students who seem to demonstrate no clear
  preference

5
INTRODUCTION

• Verbal Nomination
• RAISD
• I know he likes this
• Free Operant Preference Assessment
• Tangibles and activities
• Multiple Stimulus without Replacement
• Edibles and (maybe) tangibles

6
VERBAL NOMINATION

• History
• One of the earliest forms of preference
  assessment was to simply ask the student
• Application
• Can be used with caregivers, teachers, or child
• When time is limited
• To have a starting point and to also begin to
  eliminate items which may not be reinforcing

7
VERBAL NOMINATION

• Strengths/Weaknesses
• Self-report may not accurately identify
  reinforcers in some cases when directly observed
• (Northup et al., 1996)
• Caregiver report is frequently ineffective at
  reliably identifying reinforcers
• (Windsor , Piche, Locke, 1994)
• Teacher and caregiver report, when incorporated
  with other direct assessment procedures, may more
  effectively identify reinforcers than either of
  the two in isolation
• (Cote et al., 2007)

8
VERBAL NOMINATION

• Strengths and Weaknesses (cont)
• A reinforcer chosen by the individual receiving
  it rather than by someone else may be more
  effective
• (Fisher et al.,1996 Lerman et al., 1997
  Thompson, Fisher, Contrucci, 1998)
• Self-nomination of preference may not match
  observed preferences
• Self-nomination is limited to individuals who
  possess sufficient expressive and receptive
  language skills
• Considerations
• Students level of functioning
• Verbal abilities
• Cognitive abilities
• Use pictures when needed

9
VERBAL NOMINATION

• Reinforcer Assessment for Individuals with Severe
  Disabilities
• - (RAISD Fisher et al., 1996)
• Generates a list of potential reinforcers from
  the visual, audible, olfactory, edible, social,
  and tactile domains
• Rank orders the stimuli from most to least
  preferred based on predictions of child
  preference
• When information yielded from these methods does
  not appear to change behavior, other methods of
  reinforcer assessment may be required.

10
VERBAL NOMINATION

• Other Verbal Nomination Instruments
• School Reinforcement Survey Schedule
• (Holmes, Cautela, Simpson, Motes, Gold, 1998)
• Forced Choice Reinforcement Survey
• (Cartwright Cartwright, 1970)
• Presentation of limited choices will prevent
  unrealistic selections (such as iPhones and trips
  to Cancun)

11
RAISD/Forced Choice Reinforcement Survey
12
FREE OPERANT PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT

• History
• Developed a procedure in which participants had
  continuous access to an array of stimuli for 5
  minutes.
• (Roane et al.,1998)
• Participants were free to interact with the
  stimulus(i) of their choosing at any time
  throughout the assessment, and no stimuli were
  withdrawn from the participants

13
FREE OPERANT PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT

• Application
• Provide non-contingent access to an array of
  stimuli that may or may not function as
  reinforcers
• Operationally define interaction
• Record total duration of interaction with each
  object or percentage of intervals child
  interacted with object
• Method to assess tangible and activity
  reinforcers
• Today, you get to play with these toys. When I
  say go, play with the toys you would like to
  play with.

14
FREE OPERANT PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT

• Strengths/Weaknesses
• Length of assessment is shorter than other
  methods
• Displayed fewer problem behaviors during
  assessment
• May not get a hierarchy/ranking of preferred
  items
• Data Collection of intervals

15
FREE OPERANT PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT
16
Free Operant Assessment Data Sheet
Results from journal article by Sautter, LeBlanc,
Gillett, 2008
17
MSWO

• Multiple Stimulus Without Replacement
• -(DeLeon Iwata,1996)
• Typically referred to as an MSWO
• Uses verbal nomination results
• Developed in contrast to a forced choice
  preference assessment or a multiple stimulus with
  replacement
• -Creates a hierarchy, discrete rankings
• Hierarchy useful for more complicated
  interventions that utilize delayed reinforcement
  schedules

18
MSWO

• Application
• Student seemingly bounces around from one
  reinforcer to another
• Unpredictable preference
• Any time edibles are approved for programming
• 3-5 trials are needed

19
MSWO

• Steps in application
• 1. Obtain reinforcers
• 2. Create standardized quantities
• 3. Randomize data sheet
• 4. Allow for tact/exposure
• 5. Okay, pick one

20
MSWO

• Data sheet procedures
• Randomize each stimuli
• One presenter/administrator, one data collector
• Pitfalls
• Student grabs for more than one Block and reset
  the trial
• Saving the best for last

21
CONCLUSION

• General recommendations
• Ensure standardization
• Be prepared for problem behavior
• Threats to validity
• Mixing Edibles and Tangibles/Activities
• (DeLeon et al., 1997)
• Data collection/presentation
• Visually inspect your data
• Stop when data is stable

22
REFERENCES

• Cartwright, C. A., Cartwright, G. P. (1970).
  Determining the motivational systems of
  individual children. Teaching Exceptional
  Children, 2(3), 143-149.
• Cautela, J., Cautela, J., Esonis, S. (1983).
  Forms for behavior analysis with children.
  Champaign, IL Research Press.
• Cote, C.A., Thompson, R.H., Hanley, G.P.,
  McKerchar, P.M. (2007). Teacher report and direct
  assessment of preferences for identifying
  reinforcers for young children. Journal of
  Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 157-166.
• DeLeon, I.G., Iwata, B.A. (1996). Evaluation of
  a multiple-stimulus presentation format for
  assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of
  Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 519-532.
• DeLeon, I.G., Iwata, B.A., Goh, H.L., Worsdell,
  A.S. (1997). Emergence of reinforcer preference
  as a function of schedule requirements and
  stimulus similarity. Journal of Applied Behavior
  Analysis, 30, 439-449
• Fisher, W.W., Piazza, C.C., Bowman, L.G.,
  Amari, A. (1996). Integrating caregiver report
  with a systematic choice assessment. American
  Journal on Mental Retardation, 101, 15-25.
• Fisher, W., Thompson, R., Piazza, C., Crosland,
  K., Gotjen, D. (1997). On the relative
  reinforcing effects of choice and differential
  consequences. Journal of Applied Behavior
  Analysis, 30, 423-438.
• Lerman, D., Iwata, B., Rainville, B., Adelinis,
  J., Crosland, K., Kogan, J. (1997). Effects of
  reinforcement choice on task responding in
  individuals with developmental disabilities.
  Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30,
  411-422.
• Northup, J., George, T., Jones, K., Broussard,
  C., Vollmer, T.R. (1996). A comparison of
  reinforcer assessment methods The utility of
  verbal and pictorial choice procedures. Journal
  of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 201-212.
• Roane, H.S., Vollmer, T.R., Ringdahl, J.E.,
  Marcus, B.A. (1998). Evaluation of a brief
  stimulus preference assessment. Journal of
  Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 605-620.
• Sautter, R. A., LeBlanc, L. A., Gillett, J. N.
  (2008). Using free operant preference assessments
  to select toys for free play between children
  with autism and siblings. Research in Autism
  Spectrum Disorders, 2(1), 17-27.
• Thompson, R., Fisher, W., Contrucci, S. (1998).
  Evaluating the reinforcing effects of choice in
  comparison to reinforcement rate. Research in
  Developmental Disabilities, 19, 181-187.
• Windsor, J., Piche, L.M., Locke, P.A. (1994).
  Preference testing A comparison of two
  presentation methods. Research in
  Developmental Disabilities, 15, 439-455.

23
AND