Using choice-making opportunities to increase activity engagement in individuals with dementia

American Journal of Alzheimer's Disease and other Dementias

Volumn 21, Issue 5, 2006, Pages 318-325

  LeBlanc, Linda A ^a   Cherup, Stacey M ^a   Feliciano, Leilani ^a   Sidener, Tina M ^a  

^a WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Adult day care; Choice; Dementia; Engagement; Preference assessment

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; CASE REPORT; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; DAY CARE; DECISION MAKING; DEMENTIA; DISABILITY; EVALUATION; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; MALE;

EID: 33750330485     PISSN: 15333175     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1533317506292183     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Mace NL. Principles of activities for persons with dementia. Phys Occup Ther Geriatr. 1987;5(3):13-27.
2. Jenkins J, Felce D, Lunt B, Powell L. Increasing engagement in activity of residents in old people's homes by providing recreational materials. Behav Res Ther. 1977; 15:429-434.
3. Altus DE, Engelman KK, Mathews RM. Finding a practical method to increase engagement of residents on a dementia care unit. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen. 2002;17:245-248.
4. Engelman KK, Altus DE, Mathews RM. Increasing engagement in daily activities by older adults with dementia. J Appl Behav Anal. 1999;32:107-110.
5. Camp CJ, Orsulic-Jeras S, Lee MM, Judge KS. Effects of a Montessori-based intergenerational program on engagement and affect for adult day care clients with dementia. In: Wykle ML, Whitehouse PJ, Morris DL, eds. Successful Aging Through the Life Span: Intergenerational Issues in Health. New York: Springer; 2005:159-176.
6. Teri L, Logsdon RG. Identifying pleasant activities for Alzheimer's disease patients: The pleasant events schedule-AD. Gerontologist. 1991;31(1):124-127.
7. Logsdon RG, Teri L. The Pleasant Events Schedule-AD: psychometric properties and relationship to depression and cognition in Alzheimer's disease patients. Gerontologist. 1997;37(1):40-45.
8. Staal JA, Pickney L, Roane DM. Assessment of stimulus preferences in multisensory environment therapy for older people with dementia. Br J Occup Ther. 2003;66:542-550.
9. Pace GM, Ivancic MT, Edwards GL, Iwata BA, Page TJ. Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals. J Appl Behav Anal. 1985;18:249-255.
10. Fisher W, Piazza CC, Bowman LG, Hagopian LP, Owens JC, Slevin I. A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. J Appl Behav Anal. 1992;25:491-498.
11. DeLeon IG, Iwata BA. Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. J Appl Behav Anal. 1996;29:519-532.
12. Cannella HI, O'Reilly MF, Lancioni GE. Choice and preference assessment research with people with severe to profound developmental disabilities: a review of the literature. Res Dev Disabil. 2005;26:1-15.
13. Hagopian LP, Long ES, Rush KS. Preference assessment procedures for individuals with developmental disabilities. Behav Modif. 2004;28:668-677.
14. Higbee TS, Carr JE, Harrison CD. The effects of pictorial versus tangible stimuli in stimulus preference assessments. Res Dev Disabil. 1999;20:63-72.
15. Hanley GP, Iwata BA, Lindberg JS. Analysis of activity preferences as a function of differential consequences. J Appl Behav Anal. 1999;32:419-435.
16. Parsons MB, Harper VN, Jenson JM, Reid DH. Assisting older adults with severe disabilities in expressing leisure preferences: a protocol for determining choice-making skills. Res Dev Disabil. 1997;18:113-126.
17. Conyers C, Doole A, Vause T, Harapiak S, Yu DC, Martin GL. Predicting the relative efficacy of three presentation methods for assessing preferences of persons with developmental disabilities. J Appl Behav Anal. 2002;35:49-58.
18. Kerr N, Meyerson L, Flora J. The measurement of motor, visual and auditory discrimination skills. Rehabil Psychol. 1977;24:95-112.
19. deVries C, Yu CT, Sakko G, et al. Predicting the relative efficacy of verbal, pictorial, and tangible stimuli for assessing preferences of leisure activities. Am J Ment Retard. 2005;110:145-154.
20. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. Mini-Mental State: a practical guide for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12:189-198.
21. Martin GL, Yu CT. Overview of research on the Assessment of Basic Learning Abilities Test. J Devel Disabil. 2000;7:10-36.
22. Lichtenberg PA. Behavioral treatment of geriatric depression in health care settings. In: Mental Health Practice in Geriatric Health Care Settings. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press; 1998:119-132.
23. Fisher WW, Piazza CC, Bowman LG, Amari A. Integrating caregiver report with a systematic choice assessment to enhance reinforcer identification. Am J Ment Retard. 1996;101:15-25.
24. Frank EM. Effect of Alzheimer's disease on communication function. J S C Med Assoc. 1994;90:417-423.
25. Canella HI, O'Reilly MF, Lancioni GE. Choice and preference assessment research with people with severe to profound developmental disabilities: a review of the literature. Res Dev Disabil. 2005;26:1-15.