Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of an eye gaze preference assessment using eye gaze technology to identify reinforcers for three adolescents with severe intellectual and physical disabilities. Preference was measured in a paired-choice preference assessment using eye gaze technology to determine stimulus selection. A subsequent reinforcer assessment using an ABCACB design to test the effects of high- and low-preference stimuli was implemented to determine the accuracy of eye gaze technology in identifying preferences. The results demonstrate that the preference assessment using eye gaze technology was effective in identifying reinforcers for all three participants.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Beukelman, D. R., & Mirenda, P. (2013). Augmentative and alternative communication: supporting children and adults with complex communication needs. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Browder, D. M., & Spooner, F. (2011). Teaching students with moderate and severe disabilities. New York, NY: Guilford.
Cannella, H. I., O’Reilly, M. F., & Lancioni, G. (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.
Cannella-Malone, H.,. I., Sabielny, L.,. M., & Tullis, C.,. A. (2015). Using eye gaze to identify reinforcers for individuals with severe multiple disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.231.
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.
Fisher, W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., Hagopian, L. P., Owens, J. C., & Slevin, I. (1992). A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 491–498. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1992.25-491.
Fleming, C. V., Wheeler, G. M., Cannella-Malone, H. I., Basbagill, A. R., Chung, Y. C., & Day, K. G. (2010). An evaluation of the use of eye gaze to measure preference of individuals with severe physical and developmental disabilities. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 13, 266–275. https://doi.org/10.3109/17518421003705706.
Gast, D. L., Ledford, J. R., & Severini, K. E. (2018). Withdrawal and reversal designs. In J. R. Ledford & D. L. Gast (Eds.), Single case research methodology: applications in special education and behavioral sciences (pp. 215–238). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Pace, G. M., Ivancic, M. T., Edwards, G. L., Iwata, B. A., & Page, T. J. (1985). Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1985.18-249.
Paclawskyj, T. R., & Vollmer, T. R. (1995). Reinforcer assessment for children with developmental disabilities and visual impairments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 219–224. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1995.28-219.
Rispoli, M. J., Franco, J. H., van der Meer, L., Lang, R., & Camargo, S. P. H. (2010). The use of speech generating devices in communication interventions for individuals with developmental disabilities: a review of the literature. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 13, 276–293. https://doi.org/10.3109/17518421003636794.
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.
Tullis, C. A., Cannella-Malone, H. I., Basbagill, A. R., Yeager, A., Fleming, C. V., Payne, D., & Wu, P. (2011). A review of the choice and preference assessment literature for individuals with severe to profound disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 576–595.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
Appropriate institutional approval and written parent permission were obtained for the study. All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cannella-Malone, H.I., Schmidt, E.K. & Bumpus, E.C. Assessing Preference Using Eye Gaze Technology for Individuals with Significant Intellectual and Physical Disabilities. Adv Neurodev Disord 2, 300–309 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41252-018-0072-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41252-018-0072-6