Reinforcer Preference Assessment: A useful tool for the School Psychologist

1. 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

2. 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.

3. 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

4. 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

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

6. 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

7. 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)

8. 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

9. 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.

10. 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)

11. RAISD/Forced Choice Reinforcement Survey

12. 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

13. 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.”

14. 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

15. FREE OPERANT PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT

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

17. 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 rankings • Hierarchy useful for more complicated interventions that utilize delayed reinforcement schedules

18. 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

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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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.

23. AND