ASSESSING PREFERENCES AND
IDENTIFYING REINFORCERS
KEVIN P. KLATT, PH.D., BCBA-D
PROFESSOR, UWEC
OBJECTIVES TODAY
• PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT VS REINFORCER ASSESSMENT
• CURRENT PRACTICES IN THE COMMUNITY
• METHODS TO IDENTIFY PREFERENCES
• FACTORS THAT AFFECT REINFORCER EFFECTIVENESS
• RECOMMENDATIONS
MOST COMMON CALLS I GET FROM MEMBERS OF
THE COMMUNITY (E.G., TEACHERS AND PARENTS)
I’VE TRIED EVERYTHING, AND NOTHING
WORKS.
I TRIED REINFORCEMENT AND IT DOESN’T
WORK FOR THIS KID.
I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO GIVE
SOMETHING SPECIAL TO THIS KID BUT
NOT OTHER KIDS…NOT FAIR.
WE CAN’T AFFORD TO BE BUYING STUFF
FOR KIDS ALL THE TIME.
IRONICALLY…
• THE SOLUTION TO ALMOST ALL OF THE CALLS I GET
INVOLVES IDENTIFYING REINFORCERS.
• NOT THE ONLY SOLUTION…BUT PART OF IT.
Antecedent
Behavior
Consequences
?
• THE CHALLENGE FOR THE BEHAVIOR
ANALYST/TEACHER/PARENT IS TO IDENTIFY STIMULI THAT
WILL FUNCTION AS A REINFORCER.
• “THE USE OF A PLANNED REINFORCEMENT SYSTEM MAY BE
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT YOU DO TO HELP YOUR
CHILD LEARN.” (ANDERSON, TARAS & CANNON, 1996).
UNFORTUNATELY, NOT UNDERSTANDING REINFORCEMENT
LEADS TO MISTAKES.
TWO MISTAKES ARE COMMON AND EASY TO MAKE
TWO COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS
• 1. CERTAIN STIMULI (E.G., ITEMS LIKE M&M’S AND
PRAISE) ARE “INHERENT” POSITIVE REINFORCERS.
• 2. CERTAIN STIMULI THAT SEEM AVERSIVE TO MOST
PEOPLE (E.G., YELLING) ARE NOT REINFORCERS.
• THIS ASSUMES A STIMULUS FUNCTIONS AS A
REINFORCER BASED ON TOPOGRAPHY OF THE
STIMULUS.
• REINFORCEMENT, HOWEVER, IS DEFINED BY ITS
EFFECT ON BEHAVIOR.
PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT
OR
REINFORCER ASSESSMENT
LET’S START WITH PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT
• PREFERENCE ASSESSMENTS PROVIDE DATA-BASED
METHODS FOR IDENTIFYING PREFERRED STIMULI ON AN
INDIVIDUAL BASIS.
• THE VALUE OF PREFERENCE ASSESSMENTS IS THE EXTENT
TO WHICH THE PREFERRED ITEMS FUNCTION AS
REINFORCERS.
Antecedent
Behavior
Consequences
?
• PRIOR TO 1985, THERAPISTS SELECTED POTENTIAL
POSITIVE REINFORCERS SOMEWHAT ARBITRARILY.
• THAT IS, WITHOUT KNOWING WHETHER THE
STIMULUS WOULD FUNCTION AS REINFORCEMENT.
HOW MUCH HAS CHANGED SINCE THE 1980’S?
GRAFF & KARSTEN (2012)
• SURVEYED THE CURRENT PRACTICES OF HOW
PROFESSIONALS ASSESS PREFERENCES FOR PEOPLE WITH
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES.
• 406 PEOPLE COMPLETED THE SURVEY
PARTICIPANTS
• 57% WORKED IN SCHOOLS (OTHER 43% FROM A VARIETY OF
SETTINGS)
• 32% WERE CERTIFIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSTS
• 64% HAD MASTERS DEGREE
• SPECIAL ED (43%), GENERAL ED (30%), BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS
(27%), PSYCHOLOGY (22%)
• STIMULUS PREFERENCE ASSESSMENTS CAN BE
CONDUCTED THREE DIFFERENT WAYS:
• THE FIRST TWO WAYS ARE INDIRECT ASSESSMENTS OF
PREFERENCES.
• 1. ASK
• THE CAREGIVERS
• THE CLIENT
• OFFER A PRETASK CHOICE
(THIS IS EASY TO DO IN A CLINICAL PROGRAM.)
THERE ARE TOOLS AVAILABLE…
RAISD (1996)
The Reinforcement
Assessment for
Individuals with
Severe Disabilities
• FISHER, W., PIAZZA, C. C., BOWMAN, L. G., & AMARI, A. (1996). INTEGRATING
CAREGIVER REPORT WITH SYSTEMATIC CHOICE ASSESSMENT TO ENHANCE REINFORCER
IDENTIFICATION.
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MENTAL RETARDATION, 101, 15–25.
BUT BE CAREFUL…
• RESEARCH HAS CONSISTENTLY SHOWN THAT
TEACHERS AND CAREGIVERS ARE NOT ALWAYS
ACCURATE IN WHAT THEY THINK INDIVIDUALS PREFER.
• (E.G., GREEN, REID, WHITE, HALFORD, BRITTAIN, & GARDNER, 1988)
• 2. OBSERVE THE CLIENT INTERACT WITH THE ITEMS IN
NATURAL SITUATIONS.
• THIS IS FAIRLY EASY TO DO IN A CLINICAL
PROGRAM.
• THIS, HOWEVER, IS NOT TYPICALLY DONE
SYSTEMATICALLY.
• THEREFORE MAY NOT BE RELIABLE.
THE THIRD WAY TO ASSESS PREFERENCES IS DIRECT MEASUREMENT
• 3. MEASURE THE CLIENT’S RESPONSE DURING SPECIFIC
TESTS FOR PREFERENCE.
TRIAL BASED PREFERENCE ASSESSMENTS
SINGLE STIMULUS
PAIRED STIMULUS
MULTIPLE STIMULUS
TIME BASED PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT
FREE OPERANT
TRIAL BASED ASSESSMENTS…
SINGLE STIMULUS PREFERENCE
ASSESSMENT
PACE, IVANCIC, EDWARDS, IWATA & PAGE (1985)
SINGLE STIMULUS
• THIS ASSESSMENT INVOLVES PRESENTING STIMULI
INDIVIDUALLY.
• FOR EXAMPLE, A TOY IS PLACED ON THE TABLE IN FRONT
OF THE CHILD.
SINGLE STIMULUS
PACE, IVANCIC, EDWARDS, IWATA & PAGE (1985)
• IF THE CHILD APPROACHES (SELECTS) THE TOY SHE IS
ALLOWED 5-30 SEC. OF ACCESS TO IT.
• IF THE CHILD DOES NOT APPROACH WITHIN 5 SEC. SHE IS
PROMPTED TO SAMPLE THE ITEM (PLAY WITH IT).
• ITEMS ARE PRESENTED NUMEROUS TIMES.
• ITEMS SELECTED MOST ARE CONSIDERED HIGH PREFERRED
AND “POTENTIAL” REINFORCERS.
PAIRED STIMULUS
(MITHAUG AND HANAWALT, 1978;
FISHER, PIAZZA, BOWMAN, HAGOPIAN, OWENS & SLEVIN (1992).
• IN THE PAIRED STIMULUS ASSESSMENT, 2 ITEMS ARE
PLACED EQUAL DISTANCE IN FRONT OF THE
PERSON.
PAIRED STIMULUS PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT
• THE PERSON IS TOLD TO “CHOOSE” AN ITEM.
• WHEN THE PERSON CHOOSES AN ITEM HE IS ALLOWED TO PLAY
WITH IT FOR A FEW SECONDS.
• IF HE DOESN’T CHOOSE HE IS PROMPTED TO SAMPLE THE ITEM
AND THE TRIAL IS RUN AGAIN.
DATA SHEET
PAIRED STIMULUS PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT
• ALL ITEMS ARE PAIRED WITH EACH OTHER THROUGHOUT THE
ASSESSMENT.
• A HIERARCHY OF MOST-TO-LEAST PREFERRED ITEMS CAN BE
GRAPHED.
PAIRED STIMULUS
• A DRAWBACK OF THIS ASSESSMENT IS THAT IT CAN
BE VERY TIME CONSUMING.
PAIRED STIMULUS
• A STUDY COMPARING THE SS AND PS FOUND THAT THE SS
TENDED TO OVERESTIMATE PREFERENCES COMPARED TO
THE PS.
• BOTH THE SS AND PS CAN RESULT IN PROBLEM BEHAVIORS
WHEN CONDUCTED WITH PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES. WHY?
MULTIPLE STIMULUS
(WINDSOR, PICHE, & LOCKE, 1994)
• THIS PROCEDURE INVOLVES PRESENTING (MULTIPLE) ITEMS
IN FRONT OF THE PERSON.
MULTIPLE STIMULUS
(WINDSOR, PICHE, & LOCKE, 1994)
• THE PERSON IS TOLD TO CHOOSE AN ITEM AND DATA ARE
RECORDED ON WHICH ITEM(S) ARE SELECTED ACROSS TRIALS.
• THE PERSON CAN HAVE ACCESS TO THE ITEM FOR ABOUT 20
SECONDS (OR A SMALL AMOUNT OF THE DRINK).
• THESE TRIALS ARE REPEATED SEVERAL TIMES.
• THIS ASSESSMENT TAKES LESS TIME TO CONDUCT THAN THE
SS AND PS.
• THIS ASSESSMENT, HOWEVER, CAN RESULT IN ONLY ONE
ITEM BEING CHOSEN ON ALL TRIALS (THUS
UNDERESTIMATING OTHER ITEMS).
16
14
12
10
Number
8
times
selected 6
4
2
0
We don’t know much about
these items relative to each
other.
juice box
pop
kool-aid
Toys
milk
MULTIPLE STIMULUS W/OUT REPLACEMENT (MSWO)
DELEON & IWATA (1996)
• THIS PROCEDURE IS THE SAME AS THE MULTIPLE STIMULUS EXCEPT
THAT AS ITEMS ARE CHOSEN THEY ARE REMOVED AND NOT
REPLACED.
16
14
12
10
Number 8
times
6
selected
4
2
0
juice box
pop
kool-aid
Toys
milk
DELEON AND IWATA, 1996
• A STUDY COMPARING THESE METHODS FOUND:
• THE PAIRED STIMULUS PROCEDURE TOOK AN AVERAGE OF 53
MINUTES.
• WHILE THE MSWO TOOK 16.5 MINUTES.
TIME BASED ASSESSMENT…
BRIEF FREE OPERANT
ROANE, VOLLMER, RINGDAHL, & MARCUS (1998)
• MULTIPLE STIMULI ARE PLACED ON A TABLETOP, AND PARTICIPANTS
ARE FREE TO ENGAGE WITH ANY OF THE ITEMS FOR 5 MIN.
• DURATION OF ENGAGEMENT WITH EACH ITEM IS MEASURED.
IN GENERAL, USE
• SINGLE STIMULUS FOR CLIENTS WHO HAVE DIFFICULTY MAKING A
CHOICE.
• PAIRED STIMULUS TO OBTAIN A HIERARCHY OF PREFERENCES.
• MSWO AND FREE OPERANT FOR TIME EFFICIENCY.
COMBINE TRIAL BASED AND FREE OPERANT?
RESPONSE RESTRICTION ANALYSIS
• IN TRIAL FORMATS (SS AND PS) THERE IS LIMITED ACCESS TO THE
ITEMS. ON THE OTHER HAND…
• IN A FREE OPERANT ASSESSMENT RESPONDING MIGHT OCCUR WITH
ONLY ONE ITEM.
• BOTH OF THESE LIMITATIONS MIGHT BE ALLEVIATED BY COMBINING
FORMATS.
RESPONSE RESTRICTION ANALYSIS: I. ASSESSMENT
OF ACTIVITY PREFERENCES
• HANLEY, IWATA, LINDBERG AND CONNERS, 2003
• JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS
7 ACTIVITIES CHOSEN FOR EACH CHILD
HOW?
• 1. START WITH A FREE OPERANT ASSESSMENT
• THIS OVERCOMES PROBLEMS WITH LIMITED ACCESS TO ITEMS.
• PROBABLY REDUCES TIME INVOLVED BECAUSE YOU DO NOT
HAVE TO PRESENT ITEMS NUMEROUS TIMES.
• MIGHT REDUCE PROBLEMS BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT TAKING
AWAY ITEMS.
• 2. AT SOME POINT YOU BEGIN TAKING AWAY THE MOST PREFERRED
ITEM(S) TO PREVENT EXCLUSIVE SELECTION OF THOSE ITEM(S).
• RESPONSE RESTRICTION ANALYSIS HAS BEEN USED IN BASIC RESEARCH WITH
HUMANS AND NONHUMANS.
EXAMPLES OF RULES FOR WHEN TO TAKE AWAY
TOP ITEMS
• 1. IF ITEM IS INTERACTED WITH ON 60% OR MORE OF INTERVALS
FOR TWO SESSIONS, REMOVE IT FROM THE ARRAY.
• 2. IF RESPONDING IS CONSISTENTLY DISTRIBUTED AMONG A SMALL
GROUP OF ITEMS, THAN THOSE ITEMS ARE REMOVED.
Item
removed
First
Assessment
Second
Assessment
COMPARE FREE OPERANT TO RESPONSE
RESTRICTION
WHAT IS BEING ASSESSED IN PREFERENCE
ASSESSMENTS?
WHAT ABOUT ASSESSING PREFERRED ACTIVITIES?
ASSESSING PREFERENCES FOR SOCIAL
INTERACTION IN CHILDREN DIAGNOSED WITH
AUTISM
NUERNBERGER, SMITH, CZAPAR, & KLATT
BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTIONS (2012)
GENERAL METHOD
• PHASE 1:
 POTENTIAL REINFORCING ACTIVITIES (FORMS OF PHYSICAL
ATTENTION) WERE IDENTIFIED.
• PHASE 2:
 PICTURES OF THE ACTIVITIES WERE TESTED (TAUGHT) FOR
RECEPTIVE AND EXPRESSIVE IDENTIFICATION
• PHASE 3:
 MULTIPLE-STIMULUS WITHOUT REPLACEMENT (MSWO)
PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT WAS CONDUCTED USING THE
PICTURES.
• PHASE 4:
 REINFORCER ASSESSMENT WAS CONDUCTED.
PHASE 1: IDENTIFY PREFERRED ACTIVITIES
• PARENTS AND THERAPISTS WERE ASKED TO IDENTIFY PHYSICAL
ACTIVITIES THAT WERE POTENTIALLY REINFORCING.
• SIX ACTIVITIES WERE SELECTED FOR EACH PARTICIPANT.
• PICTURES OF THE CHILD ENGAGING IN EACH ACTIVITY WERE
PRINTED ON 3 X 5 INCH CARD STOCK.
• PARTICIPANTS HAD TO DEMONSTRATE THE ABILITY TO IDENTIFY
ACTIVITIES BOTH EXPRESSIVELY AND RECEPTIVELY.
Spin
Blast Off
Swing
Horse Ride
Chase
Carousel
PHASE 3: PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT
• A MSWO PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT WAS CONDUCTED EVERY
SESSION.
• THE EXPERIMENTER PLACED ALL PICTURE CARDS ON THE TABLE IN
FRONT OF THE CHILD AND GAVE THE INSTRUCTION “PICK ONE.”
• SELECTING A PICTURE WITHIN 15 SECONDS RESULTED IN 15
SECONDS ACCESS TO THE ACTIVITY DEPICTED IN THE PICTURE.
• THE REMAINING CARDS WERE SHUFFLED AND REPRESENTED FOR
THE NEXT TRIAL, AND CONTINUED UNTIL ALL ACTIVITIES WERE
SELECTED.
• AT LEAST 6 PREFERENCE ASSESSMENTS WERE CONDUCTED PER
CHILD.
6
Cade
5
4
3
2
1
0
carousal
chase
blast off
swing
spin
horse ride
6
Natasha
Average Rank
5
4
3
2
1
0
tickles
blast off horse ride
tip me ready, set, go spin
7
Nigel
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
chase
swing can't get up
spin
Interaction
piggy
timber horse ride
WHAT ABOUT REINFORCER ASSESSMENTS?
• HOW DO WE KNOW WHETHER PREFERENCE ASSESSMENTS
ACCURATELY PREDICT WHAT WILL FUNCTION AS A REINFORCER?
“THE ONLY WAY TO TELL WHETHER A GIVEN EVENT IS
REINFORCING TO A GIVEN ORGANISM IS TO MAKE A DIRECT
TEST.”
B.F. SKINNER
PHASE 4: REINFORCER ASSESSMENT
• A SORTING TASK THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY MASTERED WAS SELECTED
FOR EACH PARTICIPANT.
• SORTING WAS RECORDED USING A 30 S PARTIAL INTERVAL
RECORDING SYSTEM.
• THE CHILD WAS INSTRUCTED TO SORT THROUGHOUT A 5 MINUTE
SESSION UNTIL ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA WAS MET.
• THE CHILD ENGAGED IN PROBLEM BEHAVIOR
• 20 SECONDS OF NO SORTING
• 5 MINUTES ELAPSED
Reinforcer Assessment (Cade)
Bsl
Tx
Bsl
Percentage of Intervals
12
.0
6.
12 0 7
.0
8.
07
12
.1
5.
12 0 7
.1
8.
12 0 7
.1
9.
07
12
.2
1.
0
1. 7
31
.0
8
2.
2.
08
2.
6.
08
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
baseline
caro usal
ho rse ride
blast o ff
swing
spin
chase
Date
Preference Assessment (Cade)
6
Rank
5
4.86
4.71
4
3.71
4
3
2
2
1.71
1
0
carousal
chase
blast off
swing
Activity
spin
horse ride
Percentage of Intervals
Reinforcer Assessment (Natasha)
Bsl
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Bsl
Tx
baseline
tickles
ready, set, go
ho rse ride
spin me
tip me
blast o ff
8
.0
5
5.
8
8
8
8
.0
.0
.0
.0
5
1
8
9
1
2
2
2
4.
4.
4.
4.
8
8
.0
.0
6
4
1
5.
5.
Date
5.83
6
5
4
3.5
3.5
3.33
2.67
m
e
2.17
sp
in
se
t,
g
o
e
Activity
re
ad
y,
m
t ip
of
f
ho
rs
eb
ac
k
rid
e
bl
as
t
m
e
3
2
1
0
t ic
kle
Rank
Preference Assessment (Natasha)
Bsl
Tx
Bsl
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
5.
9.
08
5.
8.
08
baseline
chase me
ho rse ride
can't get up
spin me
timber
swing
piggy
4.
15
.0
8
4.
18
.0
8
4.
25
.0
8
4.
30
.0
8
5.
2.
08
5.
6.
08
Percentage of Intervals
Reinforcer Assessment (Nigel)
Date
Rank
Preference Assessment (Nigel)
7.0
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
5.7
4.6
4.4
2.7
2.0
1.4
e
e
e
p
et
er
d
u
k
m
id
b
i
r
t
r
n
n
e
se
la
tim
ge
pi
ck
b
a
rs
t
s
'
a
h
o
n
b
n
i
c
h
y
a
g
g
c
n
g
i
Activity
pi
sw
m
e
HOW OFTEN SHOULD A PREFERENCE
ASSESSMENT BE CONDUCTED?
FACTORS THAT MAY INFLUENCE THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF REINFORCEMENT
• CHANGES IN PREFERENCE OVER TIME
• SATIATION VS. DEPRIVATION
CHANGES IN PREFERENCE OVER TIME
• THE RESULTS OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH IS MIXED ON HOW
STABLE PREFERENCES ARE OVER TIME.
• TWO STUDIES SUGGEST PREFERENCES REMAIN FAIRLY
STABLE.
• HANLEY, IWATA & ROSCOE, 2006
• KELLEY, SHILLINGSBURG, & BOWEN, 2016
• BOTH STUDIES IMPLEMENTED NUMEROUS “PAIRED-CHOICE”
PREFERENCE ASSESSMENTS ACROSS TIME.
• THEN THE PREFERENCE ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPARED TO EACH
OTHER TO LOOK FOR STABILITY.
• CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS ABOVE .58 WERE CONSIDERED
STABLE.
16 of 21
participants
had stable
preferences
WHAT ABOUT CHANGES WITHIN AND ACROSS DAYS?
PREFERENCES, DEPRIVATION AND PRESESSION
EXPOSURE (HARTMAN & KLATT, 2005)
PHASE 1
• PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT
• PAIRED STIMULUS (SEAN)
• MSWO (BILLY)
PHASE 2
• TEACH MANDING (REQUESTING)
• TWO VARIABLES INVESTIGATED:
1. 5 MIN OF PRESESSION EXPOSURE (SATIATION) VS
23 HOUR DEPRIVATION, AND
2. HIGH VS LOW PREFERENCE TOYS
SATIATION VS DEPRIVATION
• LIMITING ACCESS TO POTENTIAL REINFORCERS OUTSIDE OF
TRAINING OR TREATMENT SITUATIONS IS A COMMONLY
RECOMMENDED STRATEGY.
WHAT ABOUT ASSESSING PREFERENCE FOR TREATMENT PROCEDURES?
INVESTIGATING THE PREFERENCE FOR SIMULTANEOUS
PROMPTING AND CONSTANT PROMPT DELAY
PROCEDURES FOR TEACHING SKILLS TO CHILDREN WITH
AUTISM
(ASHLEY NIEBAUER)
WE USED A “CONCURRENT-CHAINS” PROCEDURE TO DETERMINE
PREFERENCE BETWEEN TWO PROMPTING PROCEDURES.
METHOD
PROCEDURE
• PREFERENCE
ASSESSMENT: CONCURRENT-CHAINS PROCEDURE
• Each child assigned 3 color cards
• Determined by color
preference assessment
METHOD
PROCEDURE
• PREFERENCE
ASSESSMENT: CONCURRENT-CHAINS PROCEDURE
• Each color randomly assigned to Constant Prompt
Delay, Simultaneous Prompting, or Control conditions
METHOD
PROCEDURE
• PREFERENCE
ASSESSMENT: CONCURRENT-CHAINS PROCEDURE
Control
• Each color randomly assigned to CPD, SP or control
conditions
METHOD
PROCEDURE
• PREFERENCE
Control
ASSESSMENT: CONCURRENT-CHAINS PROCEDURE
Simultaneous
• Each color randomly assigned to CPD, SP or control
conditions
METHOD
PROCEDURE
• PREFERENCE
Control
ASSESSMENT: CONCURRENT-CHAINS PROCEDURE
Simultaneous
Constant
Prompt Delay
• Each color randomly assigned to CPD, SP or control
conditions
• 3 COLOR CARDS PLACED ON THE TABLE IN A RANDOM
ARRAY EACH SESSION
• CHILD CHOOSES A CARD & CORRESPONDING PROCEDURE
IS PUT IN PLACE
• EACH DAY OF RESEARCH = 3 FORCED CONDITIONS AND 4
FREE-CHOICE CONDITIONS
Control
Simultaneous
Constant Prompt Delay
SAMPLE RESULT
RESULTS
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
• 1. PREFERENCE ASSESSMENTS ARE CONDUCTED TO IDENTIFY POTENTIAL
REINFORCERS. DON’T ASSUME.
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
• 2. TEACHING SKILLS, INCREASING APPROPRIATE BEHAVIORS, AND
REPLACING INAPPROPRIATE BEHAVIORS ALL REQUIRE IDENTIFYING
REINFORCERS.
• FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT IS A PROCESS TO IDENTIFY REINFORCERS
FOR PROBLEM BEHAVIOR.
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
• 3. RESULTS FROM THE VAST MAJORITY OF RESEARCH INDICATES THAT
PREFERENCE IS A RELATIVELY GOOD PREDICTOR OF REINFORCEMENT
EFFICACY.
• PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT, HOWEVER, MAY UNDERESTIMATE THE
EFFECTIVENESS OF LOWER PREFERRED STIMULI AS REINFORCERS.
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
• 4. REINFORCERS INCLUDE MANY MORE THINGS THAN FOOD OR
TOYS.
• BREAKS
• ACTIVITIES
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
• 5. IN GENERAL, PREFERENCES APPEAR TO REMAIN STABLE.
• THEREFORE, CLINICIANS/TEACHERS
CAN LIKELY SPEND TIME IN BEGINNING
PHASES OF TREATMENT OR SCHOOL YEAR ESTABLISHING THE STABILITY OF
EACH PERSON’S PREFERENCES.
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
• 6. IF POSSIBLE AND ETHICAL, LIMIT POWERFUL REINFORCERS OUTSIDE OF
TRAINING.
• 7. TRY TO FIND OR TEACH NEW REINFORCERS ON A FREQUENT BASIS.
• 8. USE A COMBINATION OF ASSESSMENTS, DIRECT AND INDIRECT…
• 9. BUT CONSTANTLY BE THINKING ABOUT WHETHER YOU HAVE STIMULI
THAT FUNCTION AS REINFORCERS.
• 10. REMEMBER REINFORCEMENT CANNOT FAIL!
THANK YOU
• SOUTHWEST WEST CENTRAL COOPERATIVE
• AMBER BRUNS
THANK YOU
[email protected]