Running Head: PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT REPLACEMENT 1

Preference Assessment Without Replacement

Rachel Antonelli

EDU 348
PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT REPLACEMENT 2

Preference Assessment Without Replacement

According to Shea and Bauer (2012), the majority of school meetings and discussions as

well as the hours of a parents’ home time are dedicated to considerations of behavior

management. Many school teachers and parents are faced with the question, “How can a child’s

behavior be changed?” Through behavior management interventions teachers and parents can

enhance the development of effective behaviors. In order to determine the student’s behavior and

the types of reinforcers used to increase the likelihood of a desired behavior, teachers must

observe, plan, and evaluate the behavior in multiple settings and circumstances (Shea & Bauer,

2012). One way to complete this is through a preference assessment, which helps to determine

the student’s preference of an item that can be used as a reinforcer for a specific behavior

(Cannella-Malone, Sabielny, Jimenez, & Miller, 2013). When completing a preference

assessment, the teacher should keep in mind that the goal is to determine a preferred item by the

student that will increase a behavior conducive to learning and replace the undesirable behavior.

Preference assessments not only assist a teacher in identifying potential reinforcers, but

also help to provide effective instruction for the individual student (Cannell-Malone et al., 2013).

Teachers are provided with multiple types of preference assessments that can be given to a

student depending on their behavior or disability. Graff and Karsten (2012) list and describe the

four different types of preference assessments teachers may use for an individual student. They

are as followed:

1. Single Stimulus: Stimuli are presented one at a time across a series of trials.

2. Paired Stimulus: Stimuli are presented two at a time across a series of trials. The

individual can only approach or select one item on a trial.

PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT REPLACEMENT 3

3. Multiple Stimulus Without Replacement: At the beginning of each session, multiple

stimuli are placed in front of the individual. The individual is only able to select one

item, therefore, the item selected is not replaced and the positions of the remaining

stimuli are changed. The individual continues to select from the remaining items until

all items have been selected or the individual stops selecting items.

4. Brief Free Operant: Multiple stimuli are placed on the table and the individual is free

to engage with any of the items presented for 5 minutes. Duration of engagement with

each object is measured.

The approaches of the individual toward each item is recorded for each assessment. Each

assessments preference hierarchies are established by calculating the percentage of approach

responses per stimulus (Single and Paired Stimulus), by calculating the percentage of approach

responses per stimulus across all sessions (Multiple Stimulus Without Replacement), or by

ranking items according to the duration of object manipulation for each stimulus (Brief Free

Operant). After all the preferences are calculated and the hierarchies are determined, the assessor

is able to identify the most preferred and least preferred item of the student. The teacher is able

to use the most preferred item as a reinforcer to increase a desired behavior. The preference

assessment used for this project was the Multiple Stimulus Without Replacement.

Participant

The participant that is included for this preference assessment is a six-year-old

Kindergarten student by the name of Cody (pseudonym), who is considered a White American

student. Academically, Cody is below grade level and has an IEP. Although the teacher did not

give much information about Cody’s academics, she did mention that he receives alternative

testing and needs more instruction on assignments. Behaviorally, Cody has trouble following
PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT REPLACEMENT 4

directions and being told what to do by the teacher or other professionals. Cody normally likes to

offer his ideas about what they should do in class, but when he is told that they are doing

something else he becomes noncompliant with the work that needs to be completed. As

mentioned by his teacher, Cody is diagnosed with Autism, ADHD, and ODD. His teacher also

mentioned that he has recently been medicated and goes through “good” and “bad” days. On the

good days, Cody listens to the teacher and is compliant with his school work and other activities.

However, on the bad days, Cody is noncompliant and becomes very agitated and frustrated with

his peers and school work. Cody’s home life is good, but his parents tend to work a lot which

may leave him not getting the full attention he wants or needs. Also, the teacher mentioned how

his parents are involved with the school but admit to a lack of routine due to their work.

From multiple observations over the last few weeks, the assessor has identified that Cody

has difficulty socializing with his peers. He normally likes to play alone and does not like it

when other students take things from him. When this happens he most likely whines until

someone notices. The teacher recommended completing the preference assessment during

anytime of the day, and noted that the student would be compliant because he gets out of class

and there are toys involved. His teacher also recommended that materials such as play-doh or

building blocks be used as items and either M&Ms or fake money slips be used for

reinforcement.

Setting

The preference assessment was given at an empty table in the hallway upstairs from the

classroom. The table was also located right outside of the bathrooms and another classroom.

Only the participant and assessor were present at the table during the time of the assessment.

This table is normally used for students who have to take tests, make up work, or who need one-
PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT REPLACEMENT 5

on-one instruction. Because the table was located right outside of the bathrooms, it did cause a

distraction to the participant and assessor, especially as other peers were entering in and out of

the bathrooms. However, the participant did sit with his back to the stairs while the assessor sat

diagonal from him facing the stairs. The participant also brought his toy ship to play with during

any breaks and while the assessor set up the items. This preference assessment was given in the

afternoon around two-thirty and was also conducted towards the end of the student’s recess. By

the end of the assessment, the participant was distracted by the older students lined up at the

other end of the hallway, who were getting ready to switch classes.

Materials

For this preference assessment, a total of five items were chosen to be used based off of

observations of the participant as well as teacher input. The teacher recommended using items

that were more hands on such as play-doh. From previous observations, the assessor noticed that

the student really enjoyed playing with Legos during recess, which is why the building blocks

were also chosen for this assessment. More observations of the student in different classes, like

art, showed that the participant liked to draw on anything he could. Therefore, the assessor

included the drawing pad for the assessment. The last two items chosen for the assessment were

a toy car and alphabet building blocks. The car was chosen to be used because the participant

liked to play with trucks and airplanes that were provided in the classroom, whereas the alphabet

blocks were chosen to see what the participant would do with them during the assessment.

Procedures

The assessment chosen for this project was the Multiple Stimulus Without Replacement

preference assessment. I chose this assessment because it was one I had already practiced in

class, and I wanted to see which items the participant preferred more than the others.
PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT REPLACEMENT 6

Nonetheless, I believed this assessment would help identify the more preferred items the student

chose that could possibly be used as a reinforcer for a desired behavior. Overall, this assessment

held 5 sessions which helped to more clearly and accurately determine the most preferred items

by the student. The preference assessment was completed on Thursday March 30th, 2017 during

the afternoon. Before going to the table in the hallway, the participant’s teacher instructed him

that he would be taken out of class to work on an activity.

Once we got to the table up the stairs, I told the student he could play with his toy ship

for a few minutes while I set things up. After I wrote down the five items on my trial list, I

proceeded to explain to the student who I was and the purpose for this activity. I mentioned that I

am a college student studying to be a teacher just like his teacher and have to do this activity for

a class. I then asked the participant if he liked M&Ms to see if I should use them as a

reinforcement or use something else. The participant seemed excited for the activity especially

when he knew toys and M&Ms would be involved.

I began each trial by placing each item one at a time on top of the table while explaining

what each item was. As I did this I reminded the student to wait until all the items were on the

table to choose one. Once all five items were placed in a line, I told the participant to choose one.

Each time he chose an item I would have him play with it for about thirty seconds and take all

the other items off the table. While he played with the toy for those thirty seconds, I started a

conversation about the item. For example, when he chose the play-doh, I would ask him what he

could make out of it, or when he chose the car, I would ask him what sound a car makes. After

our mini conversations, the student would exchange the toy for an M&M.

By the fourth and fifth sessions the participant began to become agitated and

noncompliant. He would stand up from his chair and ask if it was time to go back to the
PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT REPLACEMENT 7

classroom yet. I had to consistently remind the participant that the activity was almost done and

that he was doing such a great job. I also notified the participant that he could have a handful of

M&Ms once we were all finished. After all the sessions were completed, I followed through with

my promise of giving the participant a handful of M&Ms and praised him for helping me with

the activity.

Results

In order to determine which item was the most and least preferred, the total number of

times an item was chosen had to be divided by the total number of times it was presented. Each

item was presented in all of the sessions conducted, but once the item was selected in a trial it

was not placed back in the line for the other trials. The results of the sessions would most likely

be different if there were no distractions presented throughout the completion of this assignment.

For example, multiple students came up to the participant and grabbed some of the toys on the

table proceeding to ask why the participant was there and what they were doing. This did not

help the participant as it caught him off guard and made him lose focus for a few minutes. Also,

towards the last two sessions the participant began to become noncompliant and rushed his

choices in order to be done with the activity sooner.

As the results were calculated, one can determine that the car was the most desired item

as it was selected 36 percent of the trials it was available. The participants second preferred item

was the building blocks as they were selected 31 percent of the trials it was available. The

alphabet blocks were selected 29 percent of the trials it was available, whereas the drawing pad

was selected 27 percent of the trials it was available. Finally, the least preferred item of the

participant was the play-doh which was only selected 21 percent of the trials it was available. All
PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT REPLACEMENT 8

of these results are provided in the tables listed below. Each item is presented with a “Y” if it

was chosen, a dash if it was not presented, and an “N” for Not selected. A table representing the

hierarchy of Cody’s preferences is listed below as well.

Session 1 Date: 3/30/2017

Item Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 TOTAL
Car N N N N 0
Play-doh Y - - - 1
Alphabet Blocks N N Y - 3
Building Blocks N N N Y 4
Drawing Pad N Y - - 2

Session 2 Date: 3/30/2017

Item Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 TOTAL

Car N Y - - 2
Play-doh Y - - - 1
Alphabet Blocks N N N N 0
Building Blocks N N N Y 4
Drawing Pad N N Y - 3

Session 3 Date: 3/30/2017

Item Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 TOTAL

Car Y - - - 1
Play-doh N N N N 0
Alphabet Blocks N N Y - 3
Building Blocks N Y - - 2
Drawing Pad N N N Y 4

Session 4 Date: 3/30/2017

Item Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 TOTAL
Car Y - - - 1
Play-doh N N N Y 4
Alphabet Blocks N N Y - 3
Building Blocks N Y - - 2
Drawing Pad N N N N 0
PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT REPLACEMENT 9

Session 5 Date: 3/30/2017

Item Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 TOTAL

Car N N Y - 3
Play-doh N N N N 0
Alphabet Blocks Y - - - 1
Building Blocks N N N Y 4
Drawing Pad N Y - - 2

Cody’s Hierarchy of Preferences

Item Percentage of Trials Chosen First

Car 36% (4 of 11 trials)

Play-doh 21% (3 of 14 trials)

Alphabet Blocks 29% (4 of 14 trials)

Building Blocks 31% (5 of 16 trials)

Drawing Pad 27% (4 of 15 trials)

Discussion

One can determine that the participant’s highest preferred item was the toy car. It can also

be determined that the second highest preferred item was the building blocks. Both of these items

are items that involve hands on creativity. For example, the car could be the highest preferred

item because it is something similar the participant usually plays with. From observations, the

participant likes to build cars or airplanes out of Legos. The building blocks could be the second

highest preferred item because once again, the participant likes building things. From the

hierarchy of preferences, the teacher receives better knowledge on what types of activities and

reinforcers to use in the classroom. These activities could involve a mini science lesson where

the students have a car race or have to build something out of blocks and Legos. This would be
PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT REPLACEMENT 10

great for the participant as it allows him to use his hands and move around. From observations

over the past few weeks, it is easy to determine the student also does not like to sit around. He

would rather be up and moving and using his hands to create something. The teacher could allow

the student 5 minutes of play time with the car when he completes an assignment in the

classroom and is compliant. The teacher could even allow the participant to build something

creative from the building blocks. This can be done by having him place one to two blocks each

time he is praised for doing something good and for behaving well.

Since the student had two preferred items, in which there was not much of a difference

percentage wise, it is important to be able to use multiple items both as reinforcers in the future.

Both of these items would be beneficial to use for the participant after a completion of an

assignment or for being compliant throughout the school day. Call, Trosclair-Lasserre, Findley,

Reavis, and Shillingsburg (2012) mention that overtime the repeated use of preferences in the

effectiveness of a reinforcement item may decrease while another may increase. Therefore, it is

important to know which item can reinforce the highest level of effort or which item(s) reinforce

some effort (Call et al., 2012).

I believe that future preference assessments are needed throughout the school year to

determine the preferred items a teacher should use as reinforcers for a desired behavior. By doing

this, the teacher can determine if the preferred items have changed or stayed the same. After

completing this preference assessment, I would reconsider changing the environment and

allowing the participant to have breaks after so many sessions. In conclusion, I feel this

preference assessment was a great experience and helped me to learn the effects of it as well as

what to prepare for in the future.

PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT REPLACEMENT 11

Bibliography

Call, N. A., Trosclair-Lasserre, N. M., Findley, A. J., Reavis, A. R., Shillingsburg, M. A. (2012).

Correspondence between single versus daily preference assessment outcomes and

reinforcer efficacy under progressive-ratio schedules. Journal of Applied Behavior

Analysis, 45(4), 763-777.

Cannella-Malone, H. I., Sabielny, L. M., Jimenez E. D., & Miller, M. M. (2013). Pick one:

conducting preference assessments with students with significant disabilities. Teaching

Exceptional Children, 45(6), 16-23.

Graff, R. B., & Karsten, A. M. (2012). Assessing preferences of individuals with developmental

disabilities: A survey of current practices. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 5(2), 37-48.

Shea, T. M., & Bauer, A.M. (2011). Behavior management: A practical approach for educators.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.