An evaluation of the use of eye gaze to measure preference of individuals with severe physical and developmental disabilities

Developmental Neurorehabilitation

Volumn 13, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 266-275

  Fleming, Courtney V ^a   Wheeler, Geoffrey M ^a   Cannella Malone, Helen I ^a   Basbagill, Abby R ^a   Chung, Yi Chieh ^a   Day, Kristall Graham ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

eye gaze; multiple disabilities; physical disabilities; Preference assessment; reinforcer assessment

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CASE REPORT; CEREBRAL PALSY; CORTICAL VISUAL IMPAIRMENT; DEVELOPMENTAL DISORDER; DISEASE SEVERITY; EYE DOMINANCE; FEMALE; GAZE; HUMAN; MALE; MEASUREMENT; MULTIPLE DISABILITY; ORTHOPEDIC IMPAIRMENT; PHYSICAL DISABILITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEIZURE; STIMULUS RESPONSE; VISUAL IMPAIRMENT; BEHAVIOR THERAPY; DECISION MAKING; DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES; EYE MOVEMENT; INSTRUMENTAL CONDITIONING; PROCEDURES; REINFORCEMENT; TIME; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; BEHAVIOR THERAPY; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; CONDITIONING, OPERANT; DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES; EYE MOVEMENTS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; REINFORCEMENT (PSYCHOLOGY); TIME FACTORS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77954789145     PISSN: 17518423     EISSN: 17518431     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/17518421003705706     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Petry K, Maes B. Description of the support needs of people with multiple disabilities using the 2002 AAMR overview of literature. Educating and Training in Developmental Disabilities 2007;42:130-143.
2. Mednick M. Supporting children with multiple disabilities. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group; 2007.
3. Cooper JO, Heron TE, Heward WL. Applied behavior analysis. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2007.
4. Peck S. Communication made easier: Facilitating transitions for students with multiple disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children 2004;36:60-63.
5. DeLeon IG, Iwata BA. Evaluation of a multiplestimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 1996;29:519-533.
6. 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. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 1992;25:491-498.
7. Pace GM, Ivancic MT, Edwards GL, Iwata BA, Page TJ. Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 1985;18:249-255.
8. Paclawskyj TR, Vollmer TR. Reinforcer assessment for children with developmental disabilities and visual impairments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 1995;28:219-224.
9. Sigafoos J, Dempsey R. Assessing choice making among children with multiple disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 1992;25:747-755.
10. 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. Research in Developmental Disabilities 2005;26:1-15.
11. Batshaw ML, Pellegrino L, Roizen NJ, editors. Children with disabilities. 6th ed. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Company; 2007.
12. Skinner BF. Science and human behavior. New York: Free Press; 1953.
13. Green CW, Reid DH, Canipe VS, Gardner SM. A comprehensive evaluation of reinforcer identification processes for persons with profound multiple handicaps. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 1991;24:537-552.
14. Lim L, Browder DM, Bambara L. The effects of sampling opportunities on preference development for adults with severe disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities 2001;36:188-195.
15. Nota L, Ferrari L, Soresi S, Wehmeyer M. Self-determination, social abilities, and the quality of life of people with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research 2007;51:850-865.
16. Downing JE. Teaching communication skills to students with severe disabilities. 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Company; 2005.