Abstract
Identifying preferred content on tablet devices may be important when using such devices in programming. This study included six adults with disabilities and examined using laminated picture cards depicting application (app) icons to conduct multiple-stimulus without replacement (MSWO) preference assessments of iPad content. Following identification of preference hierarchies, we conducted reinforcer assessments to validate preference assessment results by demonstrating that selected apps functioned as reinforcers. We identified preference hierarchies for all participants, and the highest preferred app functioned as a reinforcer for a vocational task in five out of six participants’ reinforcer assessments.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brodhead, M. T., Al-Dubayan, M. N., Mates, M., Abel, E. A., & Brouwers, L. (2016). An evaluation of a brief video-based multiple-stimulus without replacement preference assessment. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 9(2), 160–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-015-0081-0.
Cannella, H. I., O’Reilly, M. F., & Lancioni, G. E. (2005). Choice and preference assessment research with people with severe to profound developmental disabilities: A review of the literature. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 26, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2004.01.006.
Carr, J. E., Nicolson, A. C., & Higbee, T. S. (2000). Evaluation of a brief multiple-stimulus preference assessment in a naturalistic context. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 353–357. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2000.33-353.
Chebli, S. S., & Lanovaz, M. J. (2016). Using computer tablets to assess preference for videos in children with autism. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 9(1), 50–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-016-0109-0.
Clay, C. J., Samaha, A. L., Bloom, S. E., Bogoev, B. K., & Boyle, M. A. (2013). Assessing preference for social interactions. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(1), 362–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2012.07.028.
Clevenger, T. M., & Graff, R. B. (2005). Assessing object-to-picture and picture-to-object matching as a prerequisite skill for pictorial preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38(4), 543–547. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2005.161-04.
Conyers, C. M., Doole, A., Vause, T., Harapiak, S., Yu, D. C. T., & Martin, G. L. (2002). Predicting the relative efficacy of three presentation methods for assessing preferences of persons with developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2002.35-49.
Daly, E. J., Wells, N. J., Swanger-Gagné, M. S., Carr, J. E., Kunz, G. M., & Taylor, A. M. (2009). Evaluation of the multiple stimulus without replacement preference assessment method using activities as stimuli. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42(3), 563–574. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2009.42-563.
DeLeon, I. G., & Iwata, B. A. (1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 519–533. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1996.29-519.
Fahmie, T. A., Iwata, B. A., & Jann, K. E. (2015). Comparison of edible and leisure reinforcers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48, 331–343. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.200.
Graff, R. B., & Gibson, L. (2003). Using pictures to assess reinforcers in individuals with developmental disabilities. Behavior Modification, 27(4), 470–483. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445503255602.
Heinicke, M. R., Carr, J. E., Pence, S. T., Zias, D. R., Valentino, A. L., & Falligant, J. M. (2016). Assessing the efficacy of pictorial preference assessments for children with developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 49, 848–868. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.342.
Hoffmann, A. N., Samaha, A. L., Bloom, S. E., & Boyle, M. A. (2017). Preference and reinforcer efficacy of high- and low-tech items: A comparison of item type and duration of access. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50, 222–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.383.
Kagohara, D. M., van der Meer, L., Ramdoss, S., O’Reilly, M. F., Lancioni, G. E., Davis, T. N., . . . Sigafoos, J. (2013). Using iPods® and iPads® in teaching programs for individuals with developmental disabilities: A systematic review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34, 147–156. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2012.07.027.
Nix, L. D. (2016). An evaluation of a stimulus preference assessment of iPad applications for young children with autism (Unpublished master’s thesis). Utah State University, Logan, Utah.
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(2), 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1996.29-201.
Paramore, N. W., & Higbee, T. S. (2005). An evaluation of a brief multiple stimulus preference assessment with adolescents with emotional behavioral disorders in an educational setting. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38, 399–403. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2005.76-04.
Parsons, M. B., Harper, V. N., Jensen, J. M., & Reid, D. H. (1997). Assisting older adults with severe disabilities in expressing leisure preferences: A protocol for determining choice-making skills. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 18(2), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0891-4222(96)00044-3.
Virués-Ortega, J., Pritchard, K., Grant, R. L., North, S., Hurtado-Parrado, C., Lee, M. S., . . . Yu, C. T. (2014). Clinical decision making and preference assessment for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 119, 151–170. doi:https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-119.2.151.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Sandra Smith and staff members at the Cache Employment and Training Center for their collaboration throughout this project.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hoffmann, A.N., Brady, A.M., Paskins, R.T. et al. Using Pictures Depicting App Icons to Conduct an MSWO Preference Assessment on a Tablet Device. Behav Analysis Practice 12, 335–342 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-018-00309-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-018-00309-2