Teacher report and direct assessment of preferences for identifying reinforcers for young children.

Teachers were asked to identify and rank 10 preferred stimuli for 9 toddlers, and a hierarchy of preference for these items was determined via a direct preference assessment. The reinforcing efficacy of the most highly preferred items identified by each method was evaluated concurrently in a reinforcer assessment. The reinforcer assessment showed that all stimuli identified as highly preferred via the direct preference assessment and teacher rankings functioned as reinforcers. The highest ranked stimuli in the direct assessment were more reinforcing than the teachers' top-ranked stimuli for 5 of 9 participants, whereas the teachers' top-ranked stimulus was more reinforcing than the highest ranked stimulus of the direct assessment for only 1 child. A strong positive correlation between rankings generated through the two assessments was identified for only 1 of the 9 participants. Despite poor correspondence between rankings generated through the teacher interview and direct preference assessment, results of the reinforcer assessment suggest that both methods are effective in identifying reinforcers for toddlers.

[1]  B. Iwata,et al.  Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. , 1996, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[2]  P. Locke,et al.  Preference testing: a comparison of two presentation methods. , 1994, Research in developmental disabilities.

[3]  D. Reid,et al.  Observational Assessment of Toy Preferences Among Young Children With Disabilities in Inclusive Settings , 2003, Behavior modification.

[4]  D. Reid,et al.  A systematic evaluation of preferences identified through person-centered planning for people with profound multiple disabilities. , 1999, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[5]  Brian A Iwata,et al.  Some determinants of changes in preference over time. , 2006, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[6]  W. Fisher,et al.  Integrating caregiver report with systematic choice assessment to enhance reinforcer identification. , 1996, American journal of mental retardation : AJMR.

[7]  B. Iwata,et al.  Response-restriction analysis: I. Assessment of activity preferences. , 2003, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[8]  M. B. Parsons,et al.  Assessing food preferences among persons with profound mental retardation: providing opportunities to make choices. , 1990, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[9]  Sue Bredekamp,et al.  Reaching potentials : appropriate curriculum and assessment for young children , 1992 .

[10]  Sue Bredekamp,et al.  Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs , 1997 .

[11]  Rachel H. Thompson,et al.  The effects of undergarment type on the urinary continence of toddlers. , 2006, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[12]  Einar T. Ingvarsson,et al.  A method for describing preschoolers' activity preferences. , 2007, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[13]  G. Martin,et al.  Predicting the relative efficacy of three presentation methods for assessing preferences of persons with developmental disabilities. , 2002, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[14]  D. Reid,et al.  Identifying reinforcers for persons with profound handicaps: staff opinion versus systematic assessment of preferences. , 1988, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[15]  J. E. Carr,et al.  Evaluation of a brief multiple-stimulus preference assessment in a naturalistic context. , 2000, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[16]  Kathleen Zanolli,et al.  Teaching Prosocial Behavior to Typically Developing Toddlers , 1997 .

[17]  T. Vollmer,et al.  Evaluation of a brief stimulus preference assessment. , 1998, Journal of applied behavior analysis.

[18]  W. Fisher,et al.  A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. , 1992, Journal of applied behavior analysis.