Reinforcer Preference Assessment A useful tool for the

  • Slides: 23
Download presentation
Reinforcer Preference Assessment: A useful tool for the School Psychologist Samuel Thompson, M. Ed.

Reinforcer Preference Assessment: A 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

INTRODUCTION Reinforcer: Any stimuli that, when presented, increases the future frequency of the behavior

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. §

INTRODUCTION School Psychologists are frequent behavioral consultants § § Last line of defense When

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

INTRODUCTION What students are we talking about? § Those requiring substantial behavioral support §

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

INTRODUCTION Verbal Nomination § RAISD § “I know he likes this…” Free Operant Preference

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

VERBAL NOMINATION History § One of the earliest forms of preference assessment was to

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

VERBAL NOMINATION Strengths/Weaknesses § Self-report may not accurately identify reinforcers in some cases when

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)

VERBAL NOMINATION Strengths and Weaknesses (cont) § A reinforcer chosen by the individual receiving

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

VERBAL NOMINATION Reinforcer Assessment for Individuals with Severe Disabilities - (RAISD; Fisher et al.

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.

VERBAL NOMINATION Other Verbal Nomination Instruments § School Reinforcement Survey Schedule • (Holmes, Cautela,

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 i. Phones and trips to Cancun)

RAISD/Forced Choice Reinforcement Survey

RAISD/Forced Choice Reinforcement Survey

FREE OPERANT PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT History § Developed a procedure in which participants had continuous

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

FREE OPERANT PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT Application § Provide non-contingent access to an array of stimuli

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. ”

FREE OPERANT PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT Strengths/Weaknesses § Length of assessment is shorter than other methods

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

FREE OPERANT PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT

FREE OPERANT PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT

Free Operant Assessment Data Sheet Results from journal article by Sautter, Le. Blanc, &

Free Operant Assessment Data Sheet Results from journal article by Sautter, Le. Blanc, & Gillett, 2008:

MSWO § Multiple Stimulus Without Replacement -(De. Leon & Iwata, 1996) § Typically referred

MSWO § Multiple Stimulus Without Replacement -(De. Leon & 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 §

MSWO § Application § § Student seemingly “bounces around” from one reinforcer to another

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

MSWO § Steps in application: 1. Obtain reinforcers 2. Create standardized quantities 3. Randomize

MSWO § Steps in application: 1. Obtain reinforcers 2. Create standardized quantities 3. Randomize data sheet 4. Allow for tact/exposure 5. “Okay, pick one…”

MSWO § Data sheet procedures: § § § Randomize each stimuli One presenter/administrator, one

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

CONCLUSION General recommendations: § Ensure standardization § Be prepared for problem behavior Threats to

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

REFERENCES Cartwright, C. A. , & Cartwright, G. P. (1970). Determining the motivational systems

REFERENCES Cartwright, C. A. , & Cartwright, G. P. (1970). Determining the motivational systems of individual children. Teaching Exceptional 2(3), 143 -149. Children, Cautela, J. , & Esonis, S. (1983). Forms for behavior analysis with children. Champaign, IL: Research Press. Cote, C. A. , Thompson, R. H. , Hanley, G. P. , & Mc. Kerchar, P. M. (2007). Teacher report and direct assessment of preferences for reinforcers for young children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 157 -166. identifying De. Leon, I. G. , & Iwata, B. A. (1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 519 -532. Journal of De. Leon, I. G. , Iwata, B. A. , Goh, H. L. , & Worsdell, A. S. (1997). Emergence of reinforcer preference as a function of schedule and stimulus similarity. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 439 -449 requirements 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 Behavior Analysis, 31, 605 -620. of Applied Sautter, R. A. , Le. Blanc, 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 in Developmental Disabilities, 19, 181 -187. reinforcement rate. Research Windsor, J. , Piche, L. M. , & Locke, P. A. (1994). Preference testing: A comparison of two presentation methods. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 15, 439 -455.

AND

AND