reinforcer preference assessment a useful tool for the school psychologist n.
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Reinforcer Preference Assessment: A useful tool for the School Psychologist

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 23

Reinforcer Preference Assessment: A useful tool for the School Psychologist - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Reinforcer Preference Assessment: A useful tool for the School Psychologist. Samuel Thompson, M.Ed., LSSP Texas Tech University School Psychology Specialization SELCO SSA Brook Roberts, M.A., LSSP SELCO SSA. INTRODUCTION.

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Reinforcer Preference Assessment: A useful tool for the School Psychologist' - tatyana-gaines

Download Now An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
reinforcer preference assessment a useful tool for the school psychologist

Reinforcer Preference Assessment:A useful tool for the School Psychologist

Samuel Thompson, M.Ed., LSSP

Texas Tech University School Psychology Specialization


Brook Roberts, M.A., LSSP


  • Reinforcer: Any stimuli that, when presented, increases the future frequency of the behavior that immediately precedes it.
  • In schools, positive reinforcement is considered the cornerstone of effective behavior change and management.
  • Positive reinforcement is impossible if the stimulus selected to serve as a reinforcer is not actually reinforcing to the student.
  • School Psychologists are frequent behavioral consultants
    • Last line of defense
  • When bringing in outside consultants, time is money
  • Special Education directors will be happy with any steps the School Psychologist can take in order to save time with the consultant
    • The first step is typically a reinforcer preference assessment
  • What students are we talking about?
    • Those requiring substantial behavioral support
    • Any student exhibiting aggression or property destruction
    • Students with frequent BIP modifications or related manifestation determination reviews
    • Students who seem to demonstrate no clear preference
  • Verbal Nomination
    • RAISD
    • “I know he likes this…”
  • Free Operant Preference Assessment
    • Tangibles and activities
  • Multiple Stimulus without Replacement
    • Edibles and (maybe) tangibles
verbal nomination
  • History
    • One of the earliest forms of preference assessment was to simply ask the student
  • Application
    • Can be used with caregivers, teachers, or child
    • When time is limited
    • To have a starting point and to also begin to eliminate items which may not be reinforcing
verbal nomination1
  • Strengths/Weaknesses
    • Self-report may not accurately identify reinforcers in some cases when directly observed
      • (Northup et al., 1996)
    • Caregiver report is frequently ineffective at reliably identifying reinforcers
      • (Windsor , Piche, & Locke, 1994)
    • Teacher and caregiver report, when incorporated with other direct assessment procedures, may more effectively identify reinforcers than either of the two in isolation
      • (Cote et al., 2007)
verbal nomination2
  • Strengths and Weaknesses (cont)
    • A reinforcer chosen by the individual receiving it rather than by someone else may be more effective
      • (Fisher et al.,1996; Lerman et al., 1997; Thompson, Fisher, & Contrucci, 1998)
    • Self-nomination of preference may not match observed preferences
    • Self-nomination is limited to individuals who possess sufficient expressive and receptive language skills
    • Considerations

Students’ level of functioning

Verbal abilities

Cognitive abilities

Use pictures when needed

verbal nomination3
  • Reinforcer Assessment for Individuals with Severe Disabilities
  • - (RAISD; Fisher et al., 1996)
    • Generates a list of potential reinforcers from the visual, audible, olfactory, edible, social, and tactile domains
    • Rank orders the stimuli from most to least preferred based on predictions of child preference
    • When information yielded from these methods does not appear to change behavior, other methods of reinforcer assessment may be required.
verbal nomination4
  • Other Verbal Nomination Instruments
    • School Reinforcement Survey Schedule
      • (Holmes, Cautela, Simpson, Motes, & Gold, 1998)
    • Forced Choice Reinforcement Survey
      • (Cartwright & Cartwright, 1970)
      • Presentation of limited choices will prevent unrealistic selections (such as iPhones and trips to Cancun)
free operant preference assessment
  • History
    • Developed a procedure in which participants had continuous access to an array of stimuli for 5 minutes.
      • (Roane et al.,1998)
    • Participants were free to interact with the stimulus(i) of their choosing at any time throughout the assessment, and no stimuli were withdrawn from the participants
free operant preference assessment1
  • Application
    • Provide non-contingent access to an array of stimuli that may or may not function as reinforcers
    • Operationally define “interaction”
    • Record total duration of interaction with each object or percentage of intervals child interacted with object
    • Method to assess tangible and activity reinforcers
    • “Today, you get to play with these toys. When I say “go”, play with the toys you would like to play with.”
free operant preference assessment2
  • Strengths/Weaknesses
    • Length of assessment is shorter than other methods
    • Displayed fewer problem behaviors during assessment
    • May not get a hierarchy/ranking of preferred items
  • Data Collection: % of intervals
free operant assessment data sheet
Free Operant Assessment Data Sheet

Results from journal article by Sautter, LeBlanc, & Gillett, 2008:

  • Multiple Stimulus Without Replacement
  • -(DeLeon & Iwata,1996)
  • Typically referred to as an MSWO
  • Uses verbal nomination results
  • Developed in contrast to a forced choice preference assessment or a multiple stimulus with replacement

-Creates a hierarchy, discrete rankings

  • Hierarchy useful for more complicated interventions that utilize delayed reinforcement schedules
  • Application
    • Student seemingly “bounces around” from one reinforcer to another
    • Unpredictable preference
    • Any time edibles are approved for programming
    • 3-5 trials are needed
  • Steps in application:
  • 1. Obtain reinforcers
  • 2. Create standardized quantities
  • 3. Randomize data sheet
  • 4. Allow for tact/exposure
  • 5. “Okay, pick one…”
  • Data sheet procedures:
    • Randomize each stimuli
    • One presenter/administrator, one data collector
  • Pitfalls:
    • Student grabs for more than one – Block and reset the trial
    • Saving the best for last
  • General recommendations:
    • Ensure standardization
    • Be prepared for problem behavior
  • Threats to validity
    • Mixing Edibles and Tangibles/Activities
      • (DeLeon et al., 1997)
  • Data collection/presentation
    • Visually inspect your data
    • Stop when data is stable
  • Cartwright, C. A., & Cartwright, G. P. (1970). Determining the motivational systems of individual children. Teaching Exceptional Children, 2(3), 143-149.
  • Cautela, J., Cautela, J., & Esonis, S. (1983). Forms for behavior analysis with children. Champaign, IL: Research Press.
  • Cote, C.A., Thompson, R.H., Hanley, G.P., & McKerchar, P.M. (2007). Teacher report and direct assessment of preferences for identifying reinforcers for young children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 157-166.
  • 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.
  • DeLeon, I.G., Iwata, B.A., Goh, H.L., & Worsdell, A.S. (1997). Emergence of reinforcer preference as a function of schedule requirements and stimulus similarity. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 439-449
  • Fisher, W.W., Piazza, C.C., Bowman, L.G., & Amari, A. (1996). Integrating caregiver report with a systematic choice assessment. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 101, 15-25.
  • Fisher, W., Thompson, R., Piazza, C., Crosland, K., & Gotjen, D. (1997). On the relative reinforcing effects of choice and differential consequences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 423-438.
  • Lerman, D., Iwata, B., Rainville, B., Adelinis, J., Crosland, K., & Kogan, J. (1997). Effects of reinforcement choice on task responding in individuals with developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 411-422.
  • 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, 201-212.
  • 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.
  • Sautter, R. A., LeBlanc, L. A., & Gillett, J. N. (2008). Using free operant preference assessments to select toys for free play between children with autism and siblings. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 2(1), 17-27.
  • Thompson, R., Fisher, W., & Contrucci, S. (1998). Evaluating the reinforcing effects of choice in comparison to reinforcement rate. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 19, 181-187.
  • Windsor, J., Piche, L.M., & Locke, P.A. (1994). Preference testing: A comparison of two presentation methods. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 15, 439-455.