Running head: PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT 1

Preference Assessment

Dana Wells

Franciscan University of Steubenville

EDU 348
PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT 2

Preference Assessment

When students, and in particular students with disabilities, are learning new tasks or

behaviors that need to be reinforced, teachers want to reinforce the correct behavior in the most

effective manner. When teachers are able to correctly identify the preferred reinforcers, it will

increase the likelihood of the student to repeat target behavior, tasks, or responses (Pence, Peter,

and Tetreault, 2012). There are many different ways to discover what will be the most preferred

reinforcer for each student. One of the most effective ways to determine this is a parent

interview, followed by a preference assessment to test out these initially identified stimuli

(Pence, Peter, and Tetreault, 2012). In a preference assessment, multiple items that have been

identified as potential reinforcers, for a particular student, are compared against each other in

order to determine the most preferred item for each individual student. There are many different

kinds of preference assessments including paired-stimulus, multiple-stimulus, and multiple-

stimulus without replacement (DeLeon and Iwata, 1996). The paired stimulus preference

assessment occurs when two items are paired together and the student has to choose between the

items. Multiple-stimulus preference assessments require the student to choose one item from an

array of six, while all six items are available for each trial. The multiple-stimulus without

replacement occurs when a student has to choose one item from an array of six, but the items do

not get replaced until the session is completely over. DeLeon and Iwata (1996) determined, after

studying each of these three preference assessments, that multiple stimulus without replacement

was able to identify more preferred reinforcers, in significantly less time, than either of the

multiple-stimulus or paired stimulus.

Results from preference assessments are used in order to encourage correct behavior, or

implement a target behavior. Once a preferred stimulus has been identified by the preference
PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT 3

assessment, it is able to be used to reinforce the desired results. Using the newly identified

stimuli as a reinforcer has been shown to increase the rate of desired behavior (Lanner, Nichols,

Field, Hanson, and Zane, 2009). Therefore, the use of preference assessments to determine the

most effective stimuli is supported by research. In terms of this study, the multiple-stimulus

without replacement preference assessment will be used.

Participant

Gregory (name is a pseudonym to protect confidentiality) is a seven-year-old student who

is in second grade in a small town, public school in northeastern Ohio. He eagerly participates in

daily activities in class, but gets extremely distracted from time to time. He finds school difficult,

especially mathematics lessons, but he does enjoy school and loves going to school. Reading is

his favorite subject because he loves to learn from reading and being read to, particularly books

about cars and monster trucks. Gregory is suspected to have dyslexia by his teacher, but has not

been diagnosed. Behavior wise, Gregory is kind and friendly to his fellow classmates, and is not

likely to intentionally disobey a teacher’s directions. During his moments of distraction, he needs

multiple redirections and becomes frustrated at himself for not listening.

At home, Gregory lives with his mother and his four-year-old younger sister. He has two

dogs, but does not seem particularly interested in them. He adores his mom and brags about how

she lets him have a snack every day when he comes home from school. Although he does not

live with his dad, Gregory sees his dad on the weekends sometimes, and loves to go ride four

wheelers and watch car races with him. When Gregory grows up, he wants to be a racecar driver,

and cannot wait for the day when he gets his license and is able to drive for the first time.
PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT 4

Setting

The preference assessment took place on October 18th, 2017 at 12:15 pm, during

Gregory’s usual recess time, which is right after lunchtime. Although this time slot was not ideal

for multiple reasons, the assessor attempted to make it as exciting as possible and made sure to

emphasize that this was for a fun activity and he was specially chosen for it. When all of the

other students lined up for recess, Gregory told everyone that he had to work on a special project

with the assessor and he skipped to the back table. The preference assessment took place in

Gregory’s usual classroom, at a blue table in the back of the room. This is the table that Gregory

usually goes to for mathematics tutoring, so it is a familiar spot that he associates with fun

activities. His classroom teacher was present in the room, working with another student on a

make-up assignment. Gregory and the assessor were seated across the table from each other, with

the items laid out between them on a paper towel.

Materials

Materials for the preference assessment were decided after directly asking Gregory what

his favorite toys, activities, and candies were. He eagerly responded with a multitude of items.

After conferring with the teacher, the assessor chose five items from Gregory’s list. These items

included skittles, goldfish, a stuffed animal bear, a toy car, and starburst candy. One of each of

these items was laid out on a paper towel between Gregory and the assessor. The extra materials,

as well as the items selected previously during a round, were placed on a chair out of Gregory’s

view so as not to distract him.

Procedures

After laying out one of each of the five pre-selected materials between Gregory and

myself, I blocked the materials with a folder and explained to Gregory what was going to
PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT 5

happen. I told him that this was a fun activity where he was able to choose his favorite things,

one at a time. I further explained that after he finished choosing each item we would do the

whole thing again multiple times. He asked if this was for my college and when I confirmed he

promised that he would work very hard to help me out. I thanked him, removed the folder, and

told him, “Pick one!”

Because Gregory and I previously knew each other through my Field Experience, I knew

if I asked him nicely and told him it helped me for class that he would be able to get through the

majority of the sessions. However, I brought extra skittles, starbursts, and goldfish that I was

prepared to use as extra incentives if he got stuck at one point and did not want to continue. In

between Gregory choosing the items, I made sure to move the items around so they were not

constantly in the same order. During the actual assessment, Gregory noticed that the objects were

being moved around and offered to move them himself, which I declined. The two times that he

offered suggestions on how to order the objects, I did follow his directions in order to keep him

engaged and invested in the activity.

Results

During the assessment, some things occurred that might have affected the outcome of the

assessment. First, the skittles were cold, and as a result Gregory complained that they were very

hard. He mentioned this after the first round, so from there on out, the assessor made sure to hold

the skittles packet to try and warm them up, closer to room temperature. Secondly, even though

Gregory mentioned starbursts as one of his favorite things, he admitted to never having eaten one

before. He found them very hard to unwrap, and quite chewy. Additionally, during the fourth

round, he mentioned that he felt guilty for eating candy if his little sister was unable to have any.

At this point, the assessor showed him the extra skittles and starbursts and promised that Gregory
PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT 6

would be able to take some home for his little sister. After this interaction, he did not eat any

more starbursts. When he selected them, he simply asked the assessor to put them to the side so

he could bring home those as well. During the seventh round, he again asked if this was

necessary for the assessor’s college class and when it was confirmed, he promised again to keep

trying hard. He mentioned having a difficulty choosing between items, so the assessor began to

ask him to “pick your favorite” from that point onward.

Points were awarded based on the order Gregory chose the items during each session. If,

for example, he chose the stuffed bear first in trial one, then chose the toy car, followed by

skittle, and then starburst, points would be awarded 1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively. The item that was

not picked was awarded 5 points. After all sessions were completed, total points for each item

were tallied, and the item with the lowest number of points was deemed the highest preference

for Gregory. Final results indicated that Gregory’s first preference was for the stuffed bear,

which ended with 19 points. Second preference was for the toy car, which ended with 22 points.

His third preference was for skittles, which ended with 26 points. Tied for fourth place of

preference were goldfish and starburst, which both ended with 34 points. Shown below are three

different charts that demonstrate an average of Gregory’s preference choices during a portion of

the assessment. In all, there were nine sessions, though not all are presented here. Additionally,

Gregory’s hierarchy of preferences is included below. In order to calculate the percentages, one

has to take the number of trials the item was chosen, and divide it by the number of trials in

which the item was available. From there, one can multiply the number by 100% in order to get a

percentage of times the item was chosen. These percentages listed the same order of Gregory’s

preferences as did the points system. However, in regards to the two items tied for last place,
PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT 7

starburst had a slightly higher percentage than goldfish, and was thus awarded fourth place,

instead of the tie for last.

Session 1 Date: October 18th, 2017

Item Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 TOTAL

Skittle No Yes - - 2
Goldfish No No No No 5
Stuffed Bear No No Yes - 3
Toy Car Yes - - - 1
Starburst No No No Yes 4

Session 2 Date: October 18th, 2017

Item Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 TOTAL

Skittle No No No Yes 4
Goldfish No Yes - - 2
Stuffed Bear Yes - - - 1
Toy Car No No Yes - 3
Starburst No No No No 5

Session 8 Date: October 18th, 2017

Item Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 TOTAL

Skittle No No Yes - 3
Goldfish No No No No 5
Stuffed Bear Yes - - - 1
Toy Car No Yes - - 2
Starburst No No No Yes 4
PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT 8

Item Points Awarded Percentage of Trials Chosen/Presented

Stuffed Bear 19 points 47% (9 of 19 trials)

Toy Car 22 points 38% (8 of 21 trials)

Skittles 26 points 32% (8 of 25 trials)

Starburst 34 points 19% (6 of 31 trials)

Goldfish 34 points 16.7% (3 of 30 trials)

Discussion

In terms of application, these results may be used in order to effectively reinforce or

increase the rate of target or desired behavior (Lanner et al, 2009). This data should be applied to

the current classroom climate, in which a particular student needs more encouragement, or

incentive, to complete a particular task. In terms of Gregory, although he has minimal behavior

problems, he does get distracted throughout the day. The preferred stimuli, indicated by his

preference assessment, could be used as an encouragement, or a brain break, in order to help him

get through different lessons and parts of the day. If Gregory knew that he would get a few

minutes to play with the stuffed bear if he stayed on task for an entire lesson, he may be more

motivated to do so. In terms of using first vs. second preference, that should be determined on an

individual basis. Gregory’s second preference was playing with a toy car, which may be more

distracting to the rest of the class in certain cases, so it would be more ideal for him to play with

the bear. In other individualized situations, it may work better to use the second preference as the

more common reinforcer, while reserving the first preference for a more difficult task or

behavior. Current research shows that because these preferred stimuli change over time, it is
PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT 9

prudent to complete multiple preference assessments moving forward, in order to continue to

determine a student’s primary reinforcer (DeLeon and Iwata, 1996).

If I were able to go back and modify how Gregory’s preference assessment occurred,

there are a few things I would have done differently. If possible, I would have arranged a time

other than recess to complete this preference assessment. As a distractible student, Gregory

needs time to let out all his energy and run around, and I felt guilty taking that away from him on

the day of the preference assessment. Moving the time so it is not directly after lunch would also

be helpful in terms of having Gregory choose food stimuli because he would not already be full.

Secondly, I would not use starbursts as a reinforcer. After he admitted to never having a starburst

before, I knew it would not be one of the highest preferred choices, and it ended up tying for last

place in terms of points, and fourth place in terms of percentages. To avoid this occurring, I

would make sure to question if the students have ever actually eaten the snack, or played with the

toy, before selecting it as one of the five potential reinforcers.

PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT 10

Bibliography

DeLeon, I. G., & Iwata, B. A. (1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for

assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29(4), 519-533.

Lanner, T., Nichols, B., Field, S., Hanson, J., & Zane, T. (2009). The clinical utility of two

reinforcement preference assessment techniques: A comparison of duration of assessment

and identification of functional reinforcers. The Behavior Analyst Today, 10(3&4), 456-

466.

Pence, S. T., Peter, C. C., & Tetreault, A. S. (2012). Increasing accurate preference assessment

implementation through pyramidal training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45(2),

345-59.