Preference for Alternative Communication Modality Based on Reinforcer Quality and Availability

Abstract

Preference for augmentative or alternative communication (AAC) systems has received growing interest in work with individuals with developmental disabilities. An individual may choose a modality based on technological (e.g., auditory-output) or aesthetic features of a system; however, it is ideal that functional features (i.e., effectiveness in producing a reinforcer) affect preference to a much greater extent. Prior research has treated preference as a static variable and may commonly report a lack of preference for a modality or control by irrelevant features of the assessment (e.g., position of the modality in an array). The current study assessed the preference for AAC modalities of a teenager with autism spectrum disorder and intellectual disability using a concurrent-chains procedure. This study extended prior research by including additional methods to ensure accurate assessment of preference (i.e., a control condition) and a reinforcer manipulation to determine whether preference was controlled by non-functional (e.g., aesthetic) or functional (i.e., reinforcer quality and availability) variables. Preference was found to be functionally related to reinforcer availability, including when rapidly alternated between modalities. Moreover, the participant consistently allocated responding away from the control condition. Implications for self-determination and suggestions for future research on preference for AAC systems are considered.

A review of the concurrent‐chains arrangement to assess intervention choice: 2018–2023

“…Preference for interventions (accumulated and distributed reinforcement) in the context of skill acquisition has also been evaluated (e.g., Frank‐Crawford et al, 2019; Joachim & Carroll, 2018). Concurrent‐chains assessments have also been used to assess preference for prompt type (e.g., Markham et al, 2020a), communication modalities within mand training (e.g., Cariveau et al, 2022), variability within play (e.g., Galizio et al, 2020), and appropriate speech (e.g., Stocco et al, 2020).…”

“…Jessel et al (2020) suggested a preference was indicated when a participant selected a condition for three consecutive sessions. Sometimes, researchers did not set specific criteria but instead used visual inspection to determine when responding was consistent toward one condition, focusing on choices toward the end of the assessment (e.g., Cariveau et al, 2022;Joachim et al, 2018).…”