Reinforcer Preference Assessment:A useful tool for the School Psychologist

Samuel Thompson, M.Ed., LSSPTexas Tech University School Psychology SpecializationSELCO SSA

Brook Roberts, M.A., LSSPSELCO SSA

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 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 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 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 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 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 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

ConsiderationsStudents’ level of functioning

Verbal abilities

Cognitive abilities

Use pictures when needed

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, Simpson, Motes, & Gold, 1998)

Forced Choice Reinforcement Survey • (Cartwright & Cartwright, 1970)

• Presentation of limited choices will prevent unrealistic selections (such as iPhones and trips to Cancun)

RAISD/Forced Choice Reinforcement Survey

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 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 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 Assessment Data Sheet

Results from journal article by Sautter, LeBlanc, & Gillett, 2008:

MSWO

Multiple Stimulus Without Replacement

-(DeLeon & 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 rankingsHierarchy useful for more complicated interventions that utilize delayed reinforcement schedules

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 data sheet

4. Allow for tact/exposure

5. “Okay, pick 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 validity Mixing Edibles and Tangibles/Activities

• (DeLeon 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 of individual children. Teaching Exceptional Children, 2(3), 143-149.

Cautela, J., Cautela, J., & Esonis, S. (1983). Forms for behavior analysis with children. Champaign, IL: Research Press.

Cote, C.A., Thompson, R.H., Hanley, G.P., & McKerchar, P.M. (2007). Teacher report and direct assessment of preferences for identifying reinforcers for young children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 157-166.

DeLeon, I.G., & Iwata, B.A. (1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 519-532.

DeLeon, I.G., Iwata, B.A., Goh, H.L., & Worsdell, A.S. (1997). Emergence of reinforcer preference as a function of schedule requirements and stimulus similarity. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 439-449

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 of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 605-620.

Sautter, R. A., LeBlanc, 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 reinforcement rate. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 19, 181-187.

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