Investigating the validity of a structured interview protocol for assessing the preferences of children with autism spectrum disorders

Verschuur, Rianne; Didden, Robert; Meer, Larah van der; Achmadi, Donna; Kagohara, Deborah; Green, Vanessa A.; Lang, Russell; Lancioni, Giulio E.

doi:10.3109/17518423.2011.606509

Cited by 11 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(2) Providing the child with choices (Tullis et al, 2011); for example, before the child goes to free play areas, the child can be provided with a choice of two or three items or activities. (3) Communication with the child’s family and educational team (Verschuur et al, 2011) about activities the child enjoys at home and educational contexts. Beyond these ideas, a formal preference assessment can be beneficial for identifying favorites (http://ebip.vkcsites.org/preference-assessments/ offers details and instructional videos of how to conduct a formal preference assessment).…”

Section: Using Aac To Support Communication—a Three-step Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Supporting AAC Use for Preschoolers With Complex Communication Needs

Sun

Bowles

Gerde

et al. 2020

Young Exceptional Children

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

L ucy is a four-year-old in MissMiriam's preschool class. She is an extroverted child who loves engaging in play and wants to draw her peers into her favorite activities. She especially likes to work with Play-Doh and pretend play with her toy dog, Lola. Lucy is diagnosed with Down syndrome and uses fewer than 10 words verbally. After a thorough evaluation with a multidisciplinary team including a Speech Language Pathologist (SLP) and Lucy's family, Lucy has been provided with an AAC system. Miss Miriam was given support to learn how to use the AAC system. Now, Miss Miriam wants to know how she can help Lucy develop stronger communication skills through the use of AAC in the classroom.

show abstract

Section: Using Aac To Support Communication—a Three-step Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(3) Communication with the child's family and educational team (Verschuur et al, 2011) about activities the child enjoys at home and educational contexts. Beyond these ideas, a formal preference assessment can be beneficial for identifying favorites (http://ebip.…”

Section: Step 1: Identify Preferred Activities/itemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Supporting AAC Use for Preschoolers With Complex Communication Needs

Sun

Bowles

Gerde

et al. 2020

Young Exceptional Children

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most of these studies have found weak correspondence between caregiver or teacher-reported hierarchies and preference assessment hierarchies (Cote et al, 2007;Fisher et al, 1996;Green et al, 1991Green et al, , 1988Resetar & Noell, 2008). One exception, Verschuur et al (2011), found that an indirect assessment and an MSWO produced similar results. Some of these studies (Cote et al, 2007;Fisher et al, 1996;Resetar & Noell, 2008) have also conducted reinforcer assessments, which demonstrated that the stimuli identified as highly preferred by indirect and preference assessments were both likely to function as reinforcers.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing clinician-reported hierarchies of relative reinforcer efficacy to reinforcer assessment hierarchies.

Morris¹,

Vollmer²

2022

Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several studies have shown that reported hierarchies of relative reinforcer efficacy (RRE) for edible or leisure items have little correspondence with preference assessments. However, no researchers have compared reported hierarchies to reinforcer assessment hierarchies or evaluated reported hierarchies of RRE for social interactions. Clinicians were asked to provide a hierarchy of preference for social interaction and these hierarchies were compared to those produced by a subsequent reinforcer assessment, many of which had been published previously. We compared 44 reported hierarchies of preference for social interactions to 22 hierarchies produced by reinforcer assessments. Reported hierarchies were positively correlated with reinforcer assessment hierarchies, but the strength of correlation was highly variable. Reported hierarchies accurately identified the most reinforcing interaction on only 34% of comparisons. Implications of the findings for research and practice are discussed.

show abstract

“…modes were assessed throughout each phase of the study. Based on previous research Piazza, Fisher, Hagopian, Bowman, & Toole, 1996;Verschuur et al, 2011), a structured choice-making paradigm was implemented to evaluate preferences for the three AAC modes. Specifically, the choice-making paradigm involved systematic presentation of discriminative stimuli (the AAC modes) and allowed individuals to retain use of the one AAC option that was selected (see Table 4.1 for an outline of the procedures).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As previously outlined (see Preference) a key component of the research was to promoteaspects of self-determination, in evident not only in terms of assessing which AAC option children preferred to use for requesting-based communication skills, but also in terms of assessing preferences to identify items that the children were taught to request. To this end, a systematic two-stage stimulus preference assessment Verschuur et al, 2011) was implemented to identify toys and/or snacks that participants appeared to prefer and would be appropriate to teach the requesting skills. Although some of the selection percentages for preferred stimuli could be interpreted as relatively low to be qualified as preferred (e.g., Study 1, playing on the computer = 30% for Zac), nearly all of the 12 participants consistently requested, selected, and then played with/consumed the toys or snacks identified through this process.…”

Section: Implications and Applicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison and Preference: Manual Signing, Picture Exchange, and Speech-Generating Devices as Communication Modes for Children with Developmental Disabilities

Meer¹

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<p>Children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and related developmental disabilities (DD), who do not speak or have very limited spoken language, are often candidates for augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). Three common modes of AAC are manual signing (MS), picture exchange (PE), and speech-generating devices (SGDs). Studies suggest that children with ASD and other DD might demonstrate comparable proficiency in learning to use each of these communication systems. Because there may not be one single mode of AAC that appears to be most readily taught to, and learnt by, these children, decisions regarding which AAC mode to implement might need to be based upon an assessment of the individual's preferences for using different AAC systems. Giving students the opportunity to self-select their most preferred AAC mode could also be viewed as one way of promoting self-determination in AAC intervention and this in turn might significantly influence progress in learning to communicate and maintenance of newly acquired AAC skills. The three empirical intervention studies that are presented in the present thesis each made use of systematic instructional procedures, based upon the principles of applied behaviour analysis (ABA), to teach children with ASD and other DD to request (mand) preferred items using MS, PE, and SGD. A key aspect of the studies was the assessment of each child's preference for using one of the three AAC modes via a structured choice-making protocol. This choice-making protocol was designed to determine whether children made greater progress, showed increased communication ability, and continued to use AAC during follow-up sessions when their preferences for different AAC options were assessed and incorporated into the intervention process. Utilising single-case research methodology (combined multiple-baseline and alternating-treatments designs), a total of 12 participants (9 boys, 3 girls, aged 4 to 13 years) received interventions that were designed to compare acquisition, maintenance, and preference for MS, PE, and SGD. Overall, the results of the three studies demonstrated that seven of the 12 (58%) participants learnt to use, and reached criterion, for use of each AAC option. Five participants did not reach criterion for MS. Two participants did not reach criterion for PE and one of these participants did not reach criterion for SGD. Eight of the 12 (67%) participants appeared to show a preference for using the SGD. Preference for using PE was demonstrated by three out of eight (38%) participants (PE was only assessed in Studies 2 and 3). Finally, one out of the 12 (8%) participants appeared to show a preference for using MS. These data suggest greater proficiency and better maintenance when children used their preferred communication option. These findings highlight some potentially positive effects of enabling some degree of self-determination with respect to aspects of the use of AAC systems in communication intervention. Given the encouraging intervention outcomes for the present series of three studies, future research and practice should continue to seek ways of increasing opportunities for self-determination in AAC and related interventions for individuals with ASD/DD.</p>

show abstract

Investigating the validity of a structured interview protocol for assessing the preferences of children with autism spectrum disorders

Abstract: Results support the use of the structured interview protocol to determine the preferences of children with ASD. Practical implications and directions for future research are discussed.

Cited by 11 publications

References 18 publications

Supporting AAC Use for Preschoolers With Complex Communication Needs

Supporting AAC Use for Preschoolers With Complex Communication Needs

Comparing clinician-reported hierarchies of relative reinforcer efficacy to reinforcer assessment hierarchies.

Comparison and Preference: Manual Signing, Picture Exchange, and Speech-Generating Devices as Communication Modes for Children with Developmental Disabilities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About