1. Reinforcer Preference Assessment: A useful tool for the School Psychologist
Samuel Thompson, M.Ed., LSSP
Texas Tech University School Psychology Specialization
SELCO SSA
Brook Roberts, M.A., LSSP

2. INTRODUCTION
Reinforcer: Any stimuli that, when presented, increases the future frequency of the behavior that immediately precedes it.
In schools, positive reinforcement is considered the cornerstone of effective behavior change and management.
Positive reinforcement is impossible if the stimulus selected to serve as a reinforcer is not actually reinforcing to the student.

3. School Psychologists are frequent behavioral consultants
INTRODUCTION
School Psychologists are frequent behavioral consultants
Last line of defense
When bringing in outside consultants, time is money
Special Education directors will be happy with any steps the School Psychologist can take in order to save time with the consultant
The first step is typically a reinforcer preference assessment

4. What students are we talking about?
INTRODUCTION
What students are we talking about?
Those requiring substantial behavioral support
Any student exhibiting aggression or property destruction
Students with frequent BIP modifications or related manifestation determination reviews
Students who seem to demonstrate no clear preference

5. Free Operant Preference Assessment
INTRODUCTION
Verbal Nomination
RAISD
“I know he likes this…”
Free Operant Preference Assessment
Tangibles and activities
Multiple Stimulus without Replacement
Edibles and (maybe) tangibles

6. VERBAL NOMINATION
History
One of the earliest forms of preference assessment was to simply ask the student
Application
Can be used with caregivers, teachers, or child
When time is limited
To have a starting point and to also begin to eliminate items which may not be reinforcing

7. Strengths/Weaknesses
VERBAL NOMINATION
Strengths/Weaknesses
Self-report may not accurately identify reinforcers in some cases when directly observed
(Northup et al., 1996)
Caregiver report is frequently ineffective at reliably identifying reinforcers
(Windsor , Piche, & Locke, 1994)
Teacher and caregiver report, when incorporated with other direct assessment procedures, may more effectively identify reinforcers than either of the two in isolation
(Cote et al., 2007)

8. Strengths and Weaknesses (cont)
VERBAL NOMINATION
Strengths and Weaknesses (cont)
A reinforcer chosen by the individual receiving it rather than by someone else may be more effective
(Fisher et al.,1996; Lerman et al., 1997; Thompson, Fisher, & Contrucci, 1998)
Self-nomination of preference may not match observed preferences
Self-nomination is limited to individuals who possess sufficient expressive and receptive language skills
Considerations
Students’ level of functioning
Verbal abilities
Cognitive abilities
Use pictures when needed

9. Reinforcer Assessment for Individuals with Severe Disabilities
VERBAL NOMINATION
Reinforcer Assessment for Individuals with Severe Disabilities
- (RAISD; Fisher et al., 1996)
Generates a list of potential reinforcers from the visual, audible, olfactory, edible, social, and tactile domains
Rank orders the stimuli from most to least preferred based on predictions of child preference
When information yielded from these methods does not appear to change behavior, other methods of reinforcer assessment may be required.

10. Other Verbal Nomination Instruments
School Reinforcement Survey Schedule
(Holmes, Cautela, Simpson, Motes, & Gold, 1998)
Forced Choice Reinforcement Survey
(Cartwright & Cartwright, 1970)
Presentation of limited choices will prevent unrealistic selections (such as iPhones and trips to Cancun)

11. RAISD/Forced Choice Reinforcement Survey

12. FREE OPERANT PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT
History
Developed a procedure in which participants had continuous access to an array of stimuli for 5 minutes.
(Roane et al.,1998)
Participants were free to interact with the stimulus(i) of their choosing at any time throughout the assessment, and no stimuli were withdrawn from the participants

13. FREE OPERANT PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT
Application
Provide non-contingent access to an array of stimuli that may or may not function as reinforcers
Operationally define “interaction”
Record total duration of interaction with each object or percentage of intervals child interacted with object
Method to assess tangible and activity reinforcers
“Today, you get to play with these toys. When I say “go”, play with the toys you would like to play with.”

14. FREE OPERANT PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT
Strengths/Weaknesses
Length of assessment is shorter than other methods
Displayed fewer problem behaviors during assessment
May not get a hierarchy/ranking of preferred items
Data Collection: % of intervals

15. FREE OPERANT PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT

16. Free Operant Assessment Data Sheet
Results from journal article by Sautter, LeBlanc, & Gillett, 2008:

17. Multiple Stimulus Without Replacement -(DeLeon & Iwata,1996)
MSWO
Multiple Stimulus Without Replacement
-(DeLeon & Iwata,1996)
Typically referred to as an MSWO
Uses verbal nomination results
Developed in contrast to a forced choice preference assessment or a multiple stimulus with replacement
-Creates a hierarchy, discrete rankings
Hierarchy useful for more complicated interventions that utilize delayed reinforcement schedules

18. MSWO
Application
Student seemingly “bounces around” from one reinforcer to another
Unpredictable preference
Any time edibles are approved for programming
3-5 trials are needed

19. Steps in application: 1. Obtain reinforcers
MSWO
Steps in application:
1. Obtain reinforcers
2. Create standardized quantities
3. Randomize data sheet
4. Allow for tact/exposure
5. “Okay, pick one…”

20. Data sheet procedures:
MSWO
Data sheet procedures:
Randomize each stimuli
One presenter/administrator, one data collector
Pitfalls:
Student grabs for more than one – Block and reset the trial
Saving the best for last

21. General recommendations:
CONCLUSION
General recommendations:
Ensure standardization
Be prepared for problem behavior
Threats to validity
Mixing Edibles and Tangibles/Activities
(DeLeon et al., 1997)
Data collection/presentation
Visually inspect your data
Stop when data is stable

22. REFERENCES
Cartwright, C. A., & Cartwright, G. P. (1970). Determining the motivational systems of individual children. Teaching Exceptional Children, 2(3), Cautela, J., Cautela, J., & Esonis, S. (1983). Forms for behavior analysis with children. Champaign, IL: Research Press. Cote, C.A., Thompson, R.H., Hanley, G.P., & McKerchar, P.M. (2007). Teacher report and direct assessment of preferences for identifying reinforcers for young children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, DeLeon, I.G., & Iwata, B.A. (1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, DeLeon, I.G., Iwata, B.A., Goh, H.L., & Worsdell, A.S. (1997). Emergence of reinforcer preference as a function of schedule requirements and stimulus similarity. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, Fisher, W.W., Piazza, C.C., Bowman, L.G., & Amari, A. (1996). Integrating caregiver report with a systematic choice assessment. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 101, Fisher, W., Thompson, R., Piazza, C., Crosland, K., & Gotjen, D. (1997). On the relative reinforcing effects of choice and differential consequences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, Lerman, D., Iwata, B., Rainville, B., Adelinis, J., Crosland, K., & Kogan, J. (1997). Effects of reinforcement choice on task responding in individuals with developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, Northup, J., George, T., Jones, K., Broussard, C., & Vollmer, T.R. (1996). A comparison of reinforcer assessment methods: The utility of verbal and pictorial choice procedures. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, Roane, H.S., Vollmer, T.R., Ringdahl, J.E., & Marcus, B.A. (1998). Evaluation of a brief stimulus preference assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, Sautter, R. A., LeBlanc, L. A., & Gillett, J. N. (2008). Using free operant preference assessments to select toys for free play between children with autism and siblings. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 2(1), Thompson, R., Fisher, W., & Contrucci, S. (1998). Evaluating the reinforcing effects of choice in comparison to reinforcement rate. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 19, Windsor, J., Piche, L.M., & Locke, P.A. (1994). Preference testing: A comparison of two presentation methods. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 15,

23. AND