An Evaluation of a Brief Multiple-Stimulus Without Replacement Preference Assessment Conducted in an Electronic Pictorial Format

Abstract

We compared the results of a brief electronic pictorial multiple-stimulus without replacement (EP-MSWO) preference assessment to a brief tangible MSWO preference assessment in five children with autism. Results of both assessments yielded a match between high preferred (HP) toys for four participants and low preferred toys for three participants. The overall correlation between assessments across participants was strong and statistically significant (q = .67, p \ .01). A reinforcer assessment conducted with three participants confirmed HP toys identified in the EP-MSWO functioned as reinforcers.

Web‐based stimulus preference assessment and reinforcer assessment for videos

“…Behavior analysts have long taken advantage of emerging technology and benefitted from doing so (Cohen & Rozenblat, ). The present data, combined with those of prior investigations (Brodhead, Abel, et al, ; Brodhead et al, ; Brodhead, Al‐Dubayan, et al, ; Chebli & Lanovaz, ; Curiel et al, ; Snyder, Higbee, & Dayton, ; Whitehouse, Vollmer, & Colbert, ), demonstrate that technology‐based applications provide a viable means for conducting preference assessments for a variety of stimuli and for assessing the reinforcing efficacy of those stimuli. When those stimuli are videos, rather than video depictions of objects that will be made available at a later time, the automated device could be used to deliver putative reinforcers during interventions.…”

“…Whether his performance was due to a failure to understand instructions, a true lack of preference among the videos, or some other factor is unknown. Within any modality of item presentation, whether it be videos, video representations of activities (Brodhead, Abston, Mates, & Abel, ), or actual tangibles (Brodhead, Abel, et al, ; Kang et al, ), an occasional participant fails to demonstrate clear preferences when exposed to brief MSWOs, full MSWOs, or other (see Roscoe et al, ) assessment procedures. Further research is warranted to examine why this occurs and how web‐based procedures can be modified to yield interpretable results in all participants.…”

“…Researchers have recently shown that portable technology (e.g., iPads) is useful in conducting preference assessments. In one demonstration, Brodhead, Abel, et al () compared the outcomes of tangible item and electronic pictorial item multiple‐stimulus‐without‐replacement (MSWO) preference assessments for five children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). During the tangible MSWO, the tangible stimuli were presented to participants, whereas during the electronic pictorial MSWO, pictures of the tangible items were depicted on an iPad.…”

Generalization Following Tablet-Based Instruction in Children With Autism Spectrum Disorders

“…As a result, targeting and evaluating generalization with children with ASD is crucial in any intervention program. However, not all studies evaluated the generalization of taught concepts with a computer to new untaught exemplars (e.g., Moore & Calvert, 2000) and those that have typically used images of the concepts (e.g., Bosseler & Massaro, 2003; Whalen et al, 2006).Studies on the validity of preference assessments have shown that some children with ASD may readily show generalization across modalities from pictures (or videos) to objects when identifying potential reinforcers (Brodhead et al, 2016;Clark, Donaldson, & Kahng, 2015; GENERALIZATION FOLLOWING TABLET-BASED INSTRUCTION 6 Snyder et al, 2012). That said, it is was not always the case, and to our knowledge, no study has evaluated whether children with ASD were able to generalize between concepts taught using a two-dimensional modality (e.g., images) to their corresponding objects outside the context of reinforcement.…”

“…Studies on the validity of preference assessments have shown that some children with ASD may readily show generalization across modalities from pictures (or videos) to objects when identifying potential reinforces (Brodhead et al, 2016; Clark, Donaldson, & Kahng, 2015; Snyder, Higbee, & Dayton, 2012). That said, it is was not always the case, and to our knowledge, no study has evaluated whether children with ASD were able to generalize between concepts taught using a two-dimensional modality (e.g., images) to their corresponding objects outside the context of reinforcement.…”