A comparison of intervention for problematic speech using reinforcement with and without preferred topics

A Continuum of Methods for Assessing Preference for Conversation Topics

Among individuals with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorders (ASD), conversation topic preference could influence social skills in many ways. For example, an individual with advanced vocal-verbal skills, but just learning to join a conversation, might be less inclined to participate if the topic chosen is not preferred. However, commonly used preference assessment procedures have not been applied to evaluating conversation-topic preferences. Therefore, the purpose of the current experiment was to conduct three different types of assessments that varied in efficiency, the degree of certainty they allow, and clients with whom they are likely to be applicable and acceptable. In particular, we conducted a self-report preference assessment, a multiple-stimulus-without-replacement (MSWO) preference assessment, and a response restriction conversation assessment (RRCA). Each assessment identified a preferred topic of conversation, but the RRCA was the only assessment that was able to differentiate which topics would maintain a conversation. Implications for assessment and intervention procedures related to complex social skills are discussed and directions for future research are proposed.

A review of the concurrent-chains arrangement to assess intervention choice: 2018-2023

The purpose of this review is to summarize recent literature on the use of concurrent-chains arrangements in the assessment of preference for interventions (or intervention components) in the applied literature. The types of interventions and participants are described briefly, and procedural variations, ethical considerations, and recommendations for future research are discussed.

A review of methods of assessing preference for social stimuli

Research on preference and reinforcer assessments has historically focused on the evaluation of edible and leisure reinforcers, but the identification and use of individualized social reinforcers may be beneficial for several reasons. Recently, many studies have evaluated methods of assessing preference for social stimuli. The procedures and outcomes across these studies have varied greatly, and the current state of evidence for methods of assessing preference for social stimuli remains unclear. Thus, we conducted a review to synthesize all previous research in this area, evaluate the evidence for the utility of this general methodology, and identify factors that may influence its utility. Our results suggest that social preference assessments are likely to produce results that correspond with reinforcer assessment hierarchies. Preference assessment modality was one factor that influenced utility; video-based preference assessments had greater correspondence with reinforcer assessments than did other modalities. Directions for future research and implications for the use of social preference assessments in research and practices are discussed.

A translational evaluation of listener interest on the presentation of conversation topics to individuals who exhibit restricted interests

Listener behavior has been shown to influence speaker behavior. However, little is known about the extent to which listener behavior can influence countertherapeutic outcomes. This study evaluated the influence of listener interest on the topics presented by adult participants conversing with an experimenter acting as an individual who exhibited restricted interests. Each session consisted of a 5‐min conversation, during which the participant was instructed to talk about 3 topics. We compared the duration of topic presentation across phases in which the experimenter behaved as an interested listener for 1 topic or for all 3 topics. Results showed that topic presentation was controlled by listener interest and all participants reported that the simulation was believable, acceptable, and useful. Although preliminary, these findings have implications for understanding possible undesirable interactions between individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder who exhibit restricted interests and their peers or caregivers.

A Brief Assessment to Identify Sensitivity to a Conversational Partner's Interest

Individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) may seek professional assistance with social skills, such as identifying the function of social cues and responding appropriately to those cues. The purpose of the current study was to develop a brief assessment to determine participant sensitivity to social cues indicating uninterest in continuing a conversation. Results show that the assessment was successful in identifying contexts to address on an individual basis, related to social cues during conversation. Furthermore, the assessment fit within an hourly appointment appropriate for individuals with ASD (we used person-first or identify-first language based on caregiver and individual preference) who display sophisticated conversational repertoires. Future research should evaluate the content of the conversations and other nonvocal stimuli that might be beneficial in assisting with social interactions, in addition to using behavioral skills training to strengthen the specific social skills evaluated in the current study.

Descriptive assessment of conversational skills: Towards benchmarks for young adults with social deficits

Descriptive assessments are necessary to identify social norms and establish a foundation for experimental analysis. Much of the social skills intervention literature involves goals that have been selected through interviews and direct observation of behavior without a reference to desired outcomes. The purpose of the current study was to extend research on descriptive assessments of conversations by including additional measures and examining conversational behavior across contexts. We conducted a descriptive assessment of social skills exhibited by 16 neurotypical young adults. Participants had 10-min conversations in groups and 1-on-1 with friends and novel individuals. We then assessed variability within and across participants on a wide array of relevant measures. Throughout the conversations, participants shared the conversation time equally, spent most of the conversation time making on-topic comments, and gazed at their conversation partner more frequently while listening than while speaking. These descriptive data extend current research, inform future experimental analyses, and may guide clinical decisions.