Comparison of the predictive validity and consistency among preference assessment procedures: A review of the literature

Research in Developmental Disabilities

Volumn 34, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 1125-1133

  Kang, Soyeon ^a   O'Reilly, Mark ^a   Lancioni, Giulio ^b   Falcomata, Terry S ^a   Sigafoos, Jeff ^c   Xu, Ziwei ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BARI   (Italy)

^c VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF WELLINGTON   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Autism; Developmental disabilities; Effectiveness; Efficiency; Predictive validity; Preference assessments; Reinforcers

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ANALYTIC METHOD; AUTISM; CORRELATION COEFFICIENT; DEVELOPMENTAL DISORDER; DISEASE SEVERITY; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HUMAN; INTERNAL CONSISTENCY; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MENTAL DEFICIENCY; PEER REVIEW; PREDICTIVE VALIDITY; PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE; REINFORCEMENT; RETT SYNDROME; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

CHOICE BEHAVIOR; DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES; HUMANS; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; REINFORCEMENT (PSYCHOLOGY); REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 84873847808     PISSN: 08914222     EISSN: 18733379     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ridd.2012.12.021     Document Type: Review

References (37)

1. Cannella H.I., O'Reilly M.F., Lancioni G.E. 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.
2. Carr J.E., Nicolson A.C., Higbee T.S. Evaluation of a brief multiple-stimulus preference assessment in a naturalistic context. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 2000, 33:353-357.
3. DeLeon I.G., Fisher W.W., Rodriguez-Catter V., Maglieri K., Herman K., Marhefka J. Examination of relative reinforcement effects of stimuli identified through pretreatment and daily brief preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 2001, 34:463-473.
4. DeLeon I.G., Gregory M.K., Frank-Crawford M.A., Allman M.J., Wilke A.E., Carreau-Webster A.B., et al. Examination of the influence of contingency on changes in reinforcer value. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 2011, 44:543-558.
5. DeLeon I.G., Iwata B.A. Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 1996, 29:519-533.
6. DeLeon I.G., Iwata B.A., Conners J., Wallace M.D. Examination of ambiguous stimulus preferences with duration-based measures. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 1999, 32:111-114.
7. DeLeon I.G., Iwata B.A., Rosco E.M. Displacement of leisure reinforcers by food during preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 1997, 30:475-484.
8. Erbas D., Ozen A., Acar C. Comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers in teaching figure coloring to students with Down syndrome. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities 2004, 39:253-264.
9. Fisher W.W., Piazza C.C., Bowman L.G., Hagopian L.P., Owens J.C., 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.
10. Fisher W.W., Thompson R.H., Piazza C.C., Crosland K., Gotjen D. On the relative reinforcing effects of choice and differential consequences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 1997, 30:423-438.
11. Graff R.B., Ciccone F.J. A post hoc analysis of multiple-stimulus preference assessment results. Behavioral Interventions 2002, 17:85-92.
12. Hagopian L., Long E., Rush K. Preference assessment procedures for individuals with developmental disabilities. Behavior Modification 2004, 28:668-677.
13. Hagopian L.P., Rush K.S., Lewin A.B., Long E.S. Evaluating the predictive validity of a single stimulus engagement preference assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 2001, 34:475-485.
14. Hanley G.P., Iwata B.A., Lindberg J.S. Analysis of activity preferences as a function of differential consequences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 1999, 32:419-435.
15. Hanley G.P., Iwata B.A., Roscoe E.M. Some determinants of changes in preference over time. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 2006, 39:189-202.
16. Higbee T.S., Carr J.E., Harrison C.D. The effects of pictorial versus tangible stimuli in stimulus-preference assessments. Research in Developmental Disabilities 1999, 20:63-72.
17. Horrocks E., Higbee T.S. An evaluation of a stimulus preference assessment of auditory stimuli for adolescents with developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities 2008, 29:11-20.
18. Horrocks E.L., Morgan R.L. Comparison of a video-based assessment and a multiple stimulus assessment to identify preferred jobs for individuals with significant intellectual disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities 2009, 30:902-909.
19. Kang S., O'Reilly M.F., Fragale C., Aguilar J., Rispoli M., Lang R. Evaluation of the rate of problem behavior maintained by different reinforcers across preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 2011, 44:835-846.
20. Karsten A.M., Carr J.E., Lepper T.L. Description of practitioner model for identifying preferred stimuli with individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Behavior Modification 2011, 35:347-369.
21. Kodak T., Fisher W.W., Kelley M.E., Kisamore A. Comparing preference assessments: Selection- versus duration-based preference assessment procedures. Research in Developmental Disabilities 2009, 30:1068-1077.
22. Kuhn D.E., DeLeon I.G., Terlonge C., Goysovich R. Comparison of verbal preference assessments in the presence and absence of the actual stimuli. Research in Developmental Disabilities 2006, 27:645-656.
23. Lanner T., Nichols B., Field S., Hanson J., Zane T. The clinical utility of two reinforcement preference assessment techniques: A comparison of duration of assessment and identification of functional reinforcers. The Behavior Analyst Today 2009, 10:456-466.
24. Ortiz K., Carr J.E. Multiple-stimulus preference assessments: A comparison of free-operant and restricted-operant formats. Behavioral Interventions 2000, 15:345-353.
25. Pace G.M., Ivancic M.T., Edwards G.L., Iwata B.A., Page T.J. Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 1985, 18:249-255.
26. Paclawskyj T.R., Vollmer T.R. Reinforcer assessment for children with developmental disabilities and visual impairments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 1995, 28:219-224.
27. Piazza C.C., Roane H.S., Karsten A. Identifying and enhancing the effectiveness of positive reinforcement. Handbook of applied behavior analysis 2011, 151-164. Guilford Press, New York. W.W. Fisher, C.C. Piazza, H.S. Roane (Eds.).
28. Reed D.D., Luiselli J.K., Magnuson J.D., Fillers S., Vieira S., Rue H.C. A comparison between traditional economical and demand curve analyses of relative reinforcer efficacy in the validation of preference assessment predictions. Developmental Neurorehabilitation 2009, 12:164-169.
29. Reid D.H., Parsons M.B., Towery D., Lattimore L.P., Green C.W., Brackett L. Identifying work preferences among supported workers with severe disabilities: Efficiency and accuracy of a preference-assessment protocol. Behavioral Interventions 2007, 22:279-296.
30. Roane H.S., Vollmer T.R., Ringdahl J.E., Marcus B.A. Evaluation of a brief stimulus preference assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 1998, 31:605-620.
31. Rosco E.M., Iwata B.A., Kahng S.W. Relative versus absolute reinforcement effects: Implications for preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 1999, 32:479-493.
32. Rush K.S., Mortenson B.P., Birch S.E. Evaluation of preference assessment procedures for use with infants and toddlers. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy 2010, 6:2-16.
33. Steinhilber J., Johnson C. The effects of brief and extended stimulus availability on preference. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 2007, 40:767-772.
34. Thomson K.M., Czarnecki D., Martin T.L., Yu C.T. Predicting optimal preference assessment methods for individuals with developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities 2007, 42:107-114.
35. Tullis C.A., Cannella H.I., Basbigill A.R., Yeager A., Fleming C.V., Payne D., et al. Review of the choice and preference assessment literature for individuals with severe to profound disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities 2011, 46:576-595.
36. Windsor J., Piché L.M., Locke P.A. Preference testing: A comparison of two presentation methods. Research in Developmental Disabilities 1994, 15:439-455.
37. Worsdell A.S., Iwata B.A., Wallace M.D. Duration-based measures of preference for vocational tasks. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 2002, 35:287-290.