Predicting preference for items during periods of extended access based on early response allocation

Stimulus Preference Assessment Decision-Making System (SPADS): A Decision-Making Model for Practitioners

A stimulus preference assessment (SPA) is a fundamental tool used by practitioners to predict stimuli that function as reinforcers. The Behavior Analyst Certification Board (BACB) requires that all certified behavior analysts and behavioral technicians be trained in SPA methodology (BACB, 2017). SPA procedures are used by nearly 9 out of 10 behavior analysts in the field (Graff & Karsten, 2012). Over the last 4 decades, there has been a litany of research on SPA procedures. Despite the universality of training, application, and research, discussions on the selection of SPA procedures have been sparse. Two peer-reviewed articles have focused on clinical decision making in the selection of SPA procedures. Karsten et al. (2011) introduced an in situ decision-making model, whereas Virues-Ortega et al. (2014) developed an a priori algorithm based on client and stimuli characteristics. The SPADS addresses the limitations of prior models by considering the effects of stimuli dimensions, client characteristics, relative administration times, and the outcomes agreement between two potentially efficacious, context-specfic SPA procedures.

Use of Repeated Within-Subject Measures to Assess Infants' Preference for Similar Others

Research employing single-choice paradigms in which an infant is asked to make a single choice between two puppets suggest that infants show a preference for prosocial others and those who are similar to themselves. However, the extent to which infants’ preference for similar others is stable is unknown, as are other factors within the paradigm that may influence infants’ choices. The purpose of this study (two experiments, N = 44 infants, aged 8–15 months) was to replicate and extend previous work by including (1) within-subject repeated measures and (2) an experimental manipulation of a plausible demand characteristic. Results for the first-choice trial indicated a majority of the infants did not choose the similar puppet. Results from the within-subject repeated trials also indicated that a majority of the infants did not choose the similar puppet but a majority did choose a puppet from the same side. The experimental manipulation of the demand characteristic showed no effect on infant puppet choices. These results suggest that a closer examination of the single-choice puppet paradigm for assessing infants’ social evaluation is warranted. These findings also support recommendations made by others, including publishing null findings, standardizing data collection and reporting methods, and examining individual differences by employing within-subject designs with repeated measures.

Further Analysis of the Predictive Effects of a Free-Operant Competing Stimulus Assessment on Stereotypy

We conducted five experiments to evaluate the predictive validity of a free-operant competing stimulus assessment (FOCSA). In Experiment 1, we showed that each participant’s repetitive behavior persisted without social consequences. In Experiment 2, we used the FOCSA to identify high-preference, low-stereotypy (HP-LS) items for 11 participants and high-preference, high-stereotypy (HP-HS) items for nine participants. To validate the results of the FOCSAs (Experiment 3), we used a three-component multiple schedule to evaluate the immediate and subsequent effects of an HP-LS stimulus, an HP-HS stimulus, or both (in separate test sequences) on each participant’s stereotypy. Results of Experiment 3 showed that the FOCSA correctly predicted the immediate effect of the HP-LS stimulus for 10 of 11 participants; however, the FOCSA predictions were less accurate for the HP-HS stimulus. Results of Experiment 4 showed that a differential reinforcement of other behavior procedure in which participants earned access to the HP-LS for omitting vocal stereotypy increased all five participants’ latency to engaging in stereotypy; however, clinically significant omission durations were only achieved for one participant. Experiment 5 showed that differential reinforcement of alternative behavior in which participants earned access to the HP-LS stimulus contingent upon correct responses during discrete-trial training reduced targeted and nontargeted stereotypy and increased correct academic responding for all four participants. The potential utility of the FOCSA is discussed.

The effects of preference assessment type on problem behavior

Individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities who engage in problem behavior maintained by access to tangibles may exhibit more problem behavior during certain preference assessments. We compared three common preference assessments to determine which resulted in fewer problem behaviors. The paired stimulus and multiple-stimulus without replacement assessments produced higher rates of problem behavior than the free operant (FO) assessment, suggesting that the FO assessment may be the most appropriate assessment for individuals who engage in problem behavior maintained by access to tangibles.

Using Conditional Percentages During Free-Operant Stimulus Preference Assessments to Predict the Effects of Preferred Items on Stereotypy: Preliminary Findings

To date, researchers have not identified an efficient methodology for selecting items that will compete with automatically reinforced behavior. In the present study, we identified high preference, high stereotypy (HP-HS), high preference, low stereotypy (HP-LS), low preference, high stereotypy (LP-HS), and low preference, low stereotypy (LP-LS) items based on response allocation to items and engagement in stereotypy during one to three, 30-min free-operant competing stimulus assessments (CSAs). The results showed that access to HP-LS items decreased stereotypy for all four participants; however, the results for other items were only predictive for one participant. Reanalysis of the CSA results revealed that the HP-LS item was typically identified by (a) the combined results of the first 10 min of the three 30-min assessments or (b) the results of one 30-min assessment. The clinical implications for the use of this method, as well as future directions for research, are briefly discussed.

Distributed and accumulated reinforcement arrangements: evaluations of efficacy and preference

We assessed the efficacy of, and preference for, accumulated access to reinforcers, which allows uninterrupted engagement with the reinforcers but imposes an inherent delay required to first complete the task. Experiment 1 compared rates of task completion in 4 individuals who had been diagnosed with intellectual disabilities when reinforcement was distributed (i.e., 30-s access to the reinforcer delivered immediately after each response) and accumulated (i.e., 5-min access to the reinforcer after completion of multiple consecutive responses). Accumulated reinforcement produced response rates that equaled or exceeded rates during distributed reinforcement for 3 participants. Experiment 2 used a concurrent-chains schedule to examine preferences for each arrangement. All participants preferred delayed, accumulated access when the reinforcer was an activity. Three participants also preferred accumulated access to edible reinforcers. The collective results suggest that, despite the inherent delay, accumulated reinforcement is just as effective and is often preferred by learners over distributed reinforcement.

Clinical decision making and preference assessment for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities

Individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities are able to reliably express their likes and dislikes through direct preference assessment. Preferred items tend to function as rewards and can therefore be used to facilitate the acquisition of new skills and promote task engagement. A number of preference assessment methods are available and selecting the appropriate method is crucial to provide reliable and meaningful results. The authors conducted a systematic review of the preference assessment literature, and developed an evidence-informed, decision-making model to guide practitioners in the selection of preference assessment methods for a given assessment scenario. The proposed decision-making model could be a useful tool to increase the usability and uptake of preference assessment methodology in applied settings.