Multiple Stimulus Without Replacement Preference Assessments: An Examination of the Relation Between Session Number and Effectiveness

  • Christopher A. Tullis
  • Helen I. Cannella-Malone
  • Courtney V. Fleming
Original Article

Abstract

Multiple stimulus without replacement (MSWO) preference assessments have been demonstrated to effectively identify reinforcers for individuals with severe to profound disabilities, but it may be possible to make the procedures more efficient by decreasing the number of array presentations. This investigation presents one case study that compared single-, three-, and five-session MSWO formats to determine if reinforcers could be reliably identified with all three formats for one student with pervasive developmental disability not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS). Using a concurrent-operants design embedded in a reversal design, subsequent reinforcer assessments indicated that a reinforcer was identified with each assessment format. Directions for future research and procedural limitations will be discussed.

Keywords

Preference assessment MSWO Multiple stimulus without replacement Severe developmental disabilities Multiple stimulus Brief assessment 

References

  1. Bojak, S. L., & Carr, J. E. (1999). On the displacement of leisure items by food during multiple-stimulus preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 515–518.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carnine, D. (1997). Bridging the research-to-practice gap. Exceptional Children, 63, 513–522.Google Scholar
  4. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ciccone, F. J., Graff, R. B., & Ahearn, W. H. (2005). An alternate scoring method for the multiple stimulus without replacement preference assessment. Behavioral Interventions, 20, 121–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DeLeon, I. G., Iwata, B. A., Goh, H., & Worsdell, A. S. (1997). Emergence of reinforcer preference as a kind of function of schedule requirements and stimulus similarity. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 439–449.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DeLeon, I. G., Iwata, B. A., & Roscoe, E. M. (1997). Displacement of leisure reinforcers by food during preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 475–484.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fisher, W. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hagopian, L. P., Long, E. S., & Rush, K. S. (2004). Preference assessment procedures for individuals with developmental disabilities. Behavior Modification, 28, 668–677.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Higbee, T. S., Carr, J. E., & Harrison, C. D. (1999). The effects of pictorial versus tangible stimuli in stimulus-preference assessments. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 20, 63–73.Google Scholar
  12. Higbee, T. S., Carr, J. E., & Harrison, C. D. (2000). Further evaluation of the multiple-stimulus preference assessment. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 21, 61–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York: Oxford.Google Scholar
  14. Ortiz, K. R., & Carr, J. E. (2000). Multiple-stimulus preference assessments: A comparison of free-operant and restricted-operant formats. Behavioral Interventions, 15, 345–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pace, G. M., Ivanic, 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Piazza, C. C., Fisher, W. W., Hagopian, L. P., Bowman, L. G., & Toole, L. (1996). Using a choice assessment to predict reinforcer effectiveness. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 1–9.Google Scholar
  17. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Roscoe, E. M., Iwata, B. A., & Kahng, S. (1999). Relative versus absolute reinforcer effects: implications for preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32, 479–493.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher A. Tullis
    • 1
  • Helen I. Cannella-Malone
    • 1
  • Courtney V. Fleming
    • 1
  1. 1.The Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations