Download This Article (PDF) - Division on Autism and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

was 68% (range 42% to 83%). In the video presentation phases, the average was 62% (range 33% to 83%). Lastly, in the spoken phases, the average was 50% (range 42% to 58%). Participants 6 and 7 passed the visual, visual matching-to-sample, and auditory-visual discrimination assessments on the ABLA Test. They selected their preferred activity on all trials (100%) during object, pictorial, and video phases, and on an average of 85% of the spoken phase trials (range 83% to 92%). Discussion Concerning the object, pictorial, and spoken modalities, the results replicate the findings of previous research except for the pictorial modality with Participant 5. First, we anticipated that Level 3 participants would select their preferred activity more frequently during object phases, but at approximately chance level during pictorial and spoken phases. <strong>This</strong> was confirmed. Second, we anticipated that Level 4 participants would select their preferred activity more frequently during object and pictorial phases, but at approximately chance level during spoken phases. <strong>This</strong> was confirmed except for the pictorial modality with Participant 5. His preference toward the preferred leisure activity was inconsistent during pictorial phases. He selected his preferred activity on an average of 63% across phases. Participant 5 did not select his preferred activity during object phases as frequently as other participants (i.e., on an average of 75% across phases vs. on an average of 96% across phases for other participants). <strong>This</strong> suggests that the activity was not as strongly preferred and this may have contributed to the mixed results. Overall, Participant 4 selected her preferred leisure activity during pictorial phases more frequently even though her preference toward the preferred activity was inconsistent across phases and the effect is small (i.e., on an average of 75% across phases). Third, we anticipated that the Level 6 participants would select their preferred activity more frequently during all three stimulus modalities. <strong>This</strong> was confirmed in all modalities. Except for Participant 5’s performance in the pictorial modality, these results are consistent with previous findings (e.g., Conyers et al., 2002; de Vries et al., 2005). The present study extends previous research by examining the use of video presentations in preference assessments with persons with severe and profound developmental disabilities. During video presentations, all participants at Level 3 did not show a preference for their preferred over the less preferred activities, while both participants at Level 6 chose their preferred activities consistently. The two participants at Level 4 showed mixed results, with Participant 4 choosing her preferred activity more frequently than the less preferred activity even though her performance was inconsistent across phases, whereas Participant 5 did not. Given the small number of participants, these results should be interpreted cautiously. Further research with additional participants, especially at Level 4, is needed. However, if the present results are generalizable, it suggests that quasi-identity matching performance involving 3-dimensional objects (the ABLA Level 4 discrimination) may not predict a person’s ability to consistently select his/her preferred activity using video presentation. Research is needed to examine the relative importance of the visual and auditory components of video presentations. In this study, the video clips were presented without sound because we speculated that sounds associated with the two videos presented concurrently might have been confusing to the participants, especially those who had not passed the auditory-visual discrimination (Level 6) on the ABLA Test. However, sounds and visual stimuli associated with different activities usually occur as a compound stimulus in the natural environment and one is often exposed to multiple stimuli simultaneously. For the Level 4 participants, who had failed to perform the ABLA Level 6 auditory-visual discrimination, it is quite possible that they may be able to discriminate some non-speech sounds. Therefore, distinctive sounds accompanying different activities might facilitate video discriminations even for participants who have not demonstrated the ABLA Level 6 discrimination. Alternatives to concurrent presentations of videos with sound, such as successive presentations, may help to reduce potential interference. Discrimination Skills / 395
Research on video presentation in preference assessment has been limited for persons with severe developmental disabilities, and the relationship between discrimination skills and the effectiveness of the video presentation in preference assessments has been unexplored. The potential of video presentation appears to lie in its ability to present complex activities more accurately (Ellerd et al., 2002; Stock et al., 2003). It is possible that individuals with severe developmental disabilities who have difficulties responding to pictorial and spoken stimuli in preference assessments could respond to or learn to respond to video presentations more readily. Thus, future research is much needed to examine the conditions under which video presentation will be most effective (relative to other modalities) and to develop effective procedures to teach individuals to indicate their preferences by responding to video presentations. References Clevenger, T. M., & Graff, R. B. (2005). Assessing object-to-picture and picture-to-object matching as prerequisite skills for pictorial preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38, 543–547. Conyers, C., Doole, A., Vause, T., Harapiak, S., Yu, C. T., & Martin, G. L. (2002). Predicting the relative efficiency of the three presentation methods for assessing performances of persons with developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35, 49–58. de Vries, C., Yu, C. T., Sakko, G., Wirth, K. M., Walters, K. L., Marion, C., et al. (2005). Predicting the relative efficacy of verbal, pictorial, and tangible stimuli for assessing preferences of leisure activities. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 110, 145–154. Ellerd, D. A., Morgan, R. L., & Salzberg, C. L. (2002). Comparison of two approaches for identifying job preferences among persons with disabilities using video CD-ROM. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 300–309. Fisher, W. W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., Hagopian, L. P., Owens, J. C., & Slevin, I. (1992). A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 491–498. Green, C. W., Reid, D. H., White, L. K., Halford, R. C., Brittain, D. P., & Gardner, S. M. (1988). Identifying reinforcers for persons with profound handicaps: Staff opinion versus systematic assessment of preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 31–43. Hughes, C., Hwang, B., Kim, J. H., Eisenman, L. T., & Killian, D. J. (1995). Quality of life in applied research: A review and analysis of empirical measures. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 99, 623–641. Kerr, N., Meyerson, L., & Flora, J. (1977). The measurement of motor, visual and auditory discrimination skills. Rehabilitation Psychology, 24, 156–170. Logan, K. R., Jacobs, H. A., Gast, D. L., Smith, P. D., Daniel, J., & Rawls, J. (2001). Preferences and reinforcers for students with profound multiple disabilities: Can we identify them? Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 13, 97–122. Martin, G. L., & Pear, J. (2007). Behavior modification: What it is and how to do it (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Martin, G. L., & Yu, D. C. T. (2000). Overview of research on the Assessment of Basic Learning Abilities Test. Journal on Developmental Disabilities, 7, 10–36. Pace, G. M., Ivancic, M. T., Edwards, G. L., Iwata, B. A., & Page, T. J. (1985). Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 249–255. Piazza, C. C., Fisher, W. W., Hagopian, L. P., Bowman, L. G., & Toole, L. T. (1996). Using a choice assessment to predict reinforcer effectiveness. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 1–9. Reyer, H. S., & Sturmey, P. (2006). The Assessment of Basic Learning Abilities (ABLA) Test predicts the relative efficacy of task preferences for persons with developmental disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 50, 404–409. Schwartzman, L., Yu, C. T., & Martin, G. L. (2003). Choice responding as a function of choice presentation method and level of preference in persons with developmental disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Community, and Rehabilitation, 1(3), <strong>Article</strong> 3. Retrieved March 15, 2003, from http://www.ijdcr.ca/ VOL01_03_CAN/ articles/ schwartzman.shtml Stock, S. E., Davies, D. K., Secor, R. R., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2003). Self-directed career preference selection for individuals with intellectual disabilities: Using computer technology to enhance selfdetermination. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 19, 95–103. Received: 15 November 2006 Initial Acceptance: 2 February 2007 Final Acceptance: 14 May 2007 396 / Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities-September 2008
Page 1 and 2: Education and Training in Developme
Page 3 and 4: TABLE 1 Participant Characteristics
Page 5 and 6: TABLE 3 Percentage of Trials that t
Page 7: Figure 1. Percentage of trials that

Download This Article (PDF) - Division on Autism and ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?