Identifying Community-Based Reinforcers of Adults with Autism and Related Disabilities

Abstract

A forced-choice preference assessment using pictures and no access upon selection was used to determine preferences for community-based activities with 4 young adults with autism and intellectual disability. High- and low-preference activities were then provided as delayed consequences, using a token economy, for completion of vocational tasks in a concurrent operants paradigm. All participants responded to the contingency associated with earning the high-preference activity and away from the contingency associated with earning the low-preference activity. The results suggest that a pictorial assessment without access is a valid method for identifying community-based activities that will function as reinforcers. This efficient protocol could improve treatment efficacy in applied settings.

Appendix

Procedural steps for each participant during the forced-choice preference assessment and during the baseline and concurrent operants reinforcer assessment conditions of the reinforcer assessment were assessed for treatment integrity.

Forced-Choice Preference Assessment: All Participants

• 1. Two photographs were placed side by side on table top according to data sheet.

• 2. Experimenter told participants to “pick your favorite” prior to trial one and prior to trials 10 and 20.

• 3. When a photograph was touched by a participant, the experimenter ended the trial and both photographs were removed.

Reinforcer Assessment: Baseline

William

• 1. The experimenter held a blue and orange utensil in each hand at chest height.

• 2. When William approached the experimenter within four feet, the experimenter said, “match.”

• 3. After William took a utensil, the experimenter held up two more utensils (see #1).

Fred

• 1. The experimenter placed two plastic three inch x five inch file boxes and two stacks of index cards, one orange and the other blue, with names (i.e., last name, first name) written across the top of each card, in front of the participant.

• 2. The experimenter cued “time to file.”

  (There were no programmed consequences for either accurate or inaccurate filing.)

Charles and Karl

• 1. The experimenter placed two identical stacks of paper in front of the participant.

• 2. The experimenter cued “time to shred.”

  (There were no programmed consequences for shredding paper from either stack of paper.)

Reinforcer Assessment: Concurrent Operants Condition

William

Procedures were similar to those in baseline except for the following:

• 1. The experimenter placed two 20 token boards on the table in front of the six bins.

• 2. The experimenter placed a picture of the community activity associated with completion of that task next to each token board.

• 3. The experimenter said, “time to sort, you can earn (highest preferred community activity) for sorting the orange utensils, you can earn (least preferred community activity) for sorting the blue utensils.”

• 4. The experimenter delivered tokens on a FR3 schedule for accurate sorting.

• 5. If the token board was not filled by the conclusion of a session, the experimenter said, “You can earn more tokens in a few minutes.”

• 6. When 20 tokens were earned, the experimenter delivered a coupon representing the community activity associated with that token board.

Fred

During the concurrent operants phase, procedures were similar to those in baseline except for the following:

• 1. The experimenter placed two 20 token boards on the table.

• 2. The experimenter placed next to each token board a picture of the community activity associated with completion of that task.

• 3. The experimenter said, “time to file, you can earn (highest preferred community activity) for doing task one, you can earn (least preferred community activity) for doing task two.”

• 4. The experimenter delivered tokens on a CRF schedule for the first three token deliveries, then on a FR2 schedule for the next three token deliveries, and then on a FR3 schedule for accurate filing for the remainder of the five minute sessions.

• 5. If the token board was not filled by the conclusion of a session, the experimenter said, “You can earn more tokens in a few minutes.”

• 6. When 20 tokens were earned, the experimenter delivered a coupon representing the community activity associated with that token board.

Charles and Karl

During the concurrent operants phase, procedures were similar to those in baseline except for the following:

• 1. The experimenter placed two 20 token boards, one black and the other white, on the table in front of the participant.

• 2. The experimenter placed next to each token board a picture of the community activity associated with completion of that task.

• 3. The experimenter said, “time to shred, you can earn (highest preferred community activity) for doing task one, you can earn (least preferred community activity) for doing task two.”

• 4. The experimenter delivered tokens on a FR5 schedule for Charles and on a FR3 schedule for Karl for shredding paper from either stack.

• 5. If the token board was not filled by the conclusion of a session, the experimenter said, “You can earn more tokens in a few minutes.”

• 6. When 20 tokens were earned, the experimenter delivered a coupon representing the community activity associated with that token board.