Behavior Analysis in Practice

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 95–104 | Cite as

A Comparison of Two Procedures for Assessing Preference in a Classroom Setting

  • Keith C. RadleyEmail author
  • Evan H. Dart
  • Allison A. Battaglia
  • W. Blake Ford
Research Article


The purpose of this study was to compare a method of assessing preference within a large group format to individual preference assessments. Individual preference assessments were conducted by presenting an array of four edible stimuli to a participant and allowing the participant to select a preferred stimulus, with stimuli removed from the array based on selection criteria. Group preference assessments were conducted in a classroom of 19 students, with all students responding simultaneously to a prompt to identify a preferred stimulus using Plickers—unique Quick Response code cards that are read by an accompanying smartphone app. During the group procedure, stimuli in the array were restricted on the individual participant level. Results indicated that the group procedure was a valid and rapid method of assessing preference within a group of individuals. Although additional research is required, practitioners and researchers may consider use of Plickers as a promising means of evaluating preference within a group setting.


Individual reference assessment Group preference assessment 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

All procedures performed in the current study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution and the national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.

Informed consent and assent was obtained for all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Barrish, H. H., Saunders, M., & Wolf, M. M. (1969). Good behavior game: effects of individual contingencies for group consequences on disruptive behavior in a classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 119–124.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Bradshaw, C. P., Reinke, W. M., Brown, L. D., Beavans, K. B., & Leaf, P. J. (2008). Implementation of School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) in elementary schools: observations from a randomized trial. Education and Treatment of Children, 31, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Call, N. A., Trosclair-Lasserre, N. M., Findley, A. J., Reavis, A. R., & Shillingsburg, M. A. (2012). Correspondence between single versus daily preference assessment outcomes and reinforcer efficacy under progressive-ratio schedules. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45, 763–777.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Ciccone, F. J., Graff, R. B., & Ahearn, W. H. (2007). Long-term stability of edible preferences in individuals with developmental disabilities. Behavioral Interventions, 22, 223–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice.Google Scholar
  6. Dart, E. H., Radley, K. C., Battaglia, A. A., Dadakhodjaeva, K., Bates, K. E., & Wright, S. J. (2016). The classroom password: a class-wide intervention to increase academic engagement. Psychology in the Schools, 53, 416–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Filcheck, H. A., McNeil, C. B., Greco, L. A., & Bernard, R. S. (2004). Using a whole-class token economy and coaching of teacher skills in a preschool classroom to manage disruptive behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 351–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gresham, F. M., & Gresham, G. N. (1982). Interdependent, dependent, and independent group contingencies for controlling disruptive behavior. The Journal of Special Education, 16, 101–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hawkins, R. O., Haydon, T., Denune, H., Larkin, W., & Fite, N. (2015). Improving the transition behavior of high school students with emotional behavioral disorders using a randomized interdependent group contingency. School Psychology Review, 44, 208–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heal, N. A., & Hanley, G. P. (2007). Evaluating preschool children’s preference for motivational systems during instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Anlaysis, 40, 249–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hirsch, S. E., Healy, S., Judge, J. P., & Lloyd, J. W. (2016). Effects of an interdependent group contingency on engagement in physical education. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 49, 975–979.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Kehle, T. J., Bray, M. A., Theodore, L. A., Jenson, W. R., & Clark, E. (2000). A multi-component intervention designed to reduce disruptive classroom behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 475–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kodak, T., Fisher, W. W., Paden, A., & Dickes, N. (2013). Evaluation of the utility of a discrete-trial functional analysis in early intervention classrooms. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 301–306.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Krentz, H., Miltenberger, R., & Valbuena, D. (2016). Using token reinforcement to increase walking for adults with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 49, 745–750.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Lannie, A. L., & McCurdy, B. L. (2007). Preventing disruptive behavior in the urban classroom: effects of the Good Behavior Game on student and teacher behavior. Education and Treatment of Children, 30, 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Layer, S. A., Hanley, G. P., Heal, N. A., & Tiger, J. H. (2008). Determining individual preschoolers’ preferences in a group arrangement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41, 25–37.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Maggin, D. M., Johnson, A. H., Chafouleas, S. M., Ruberto, L. M., & Berggren, M. (2012). A systematic evidence review of school-based group contingency interventions for students with challenging behavior. Journal of School Psychology, 50(5), 625–654.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Mason, S. A., McGee, G. G., Farmer-Dougan, V., & Risley, T. R. (1989). A practical strategy for ongoing reinforcer assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22(2), 171–179.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2016). Adjustable spinner. Retrieved from:
  21. Piazza, C. C., Roane, H. S., & Karsten, A. (2011). Identifying and enhancing the effectiveness of positive reinforcement. In W. W. Fisher, C. C. Piazza, & H. S. Roane (Eds.), Handbook of applied behavior analysis (pp. 151–164). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. Verriden, A. L., & Roscoe, E. M. (2016). A comparison of preference-assessment methods. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 49, 265–285.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Wehman, P. (1976). Selection of play materials for the severely handicapped: a continuing dilemma. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 11, 46–50.Google Scholar
  25. Zhou, L., Iwata, B. A., Goff, G. A., & Shore, B. A. (2001). Longitudinal analysis of leisure-item preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 179–184.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Southern MississippiHattiesburgUSA

Personalised recommendations