Journal on developmental disabilities = Le journal sur les handicaps du development [sic.]最新文献

We evaluated teaching object-picture matching to improve concordance between preference assessments using objects and pictures of the same objects. Three participants with developmental disabilities who showed high and low preferences during assessments with objects but not with pictures were taught object-picture matching tasks unrelated to the items used during preference assessments. Training was evaluated in a modified multiple-baseline design and preference assessments with objects and pictures were repeated after training each object-picture matching task. Two participants showed improved concordance after mastering two and three training tasks, respectively. The third participant did not show concordance between object and picture preference assessments after mastering two tasks and after additional training. Our findings suggested that object-picture matching might be a prerequisite for picture preference assessments.

We assessed the activity preferences of three children with profound multiple disabilities and minimal movement using a single stimulus presentation procedure. We recorded active approach, passive approach, and rejection responses on each trial during the assessments. Active approach included reaching for, touching, or manipulating the stimulus. Passive approach included looking at or orienting toward the stimulus and happiness indicators such as smiling. Active approaches and rejection responses were infrequent, but preference hierarchies based on passive approaches emerged for all three children. Two children were available for reinforcer testing after the preference assessments. The identified high preference activities based on passive approach responses maintained higher rates of switch pressing than the low preference activities for one child and maintained approximately the same rates of switch pressing for the second child.

Effects of choice versus no choice of work tasks on work performance, inappropriate behaviours, happiness and unhappiness indices were examined in three studies. Study 1 examined the effects of a choice between a high and a low preference task, versus the assignment of the high preference task. Study 2 was similar to Study 1 except that the tasks in the choice condition were equally and moderately preferred. Study 3 was conducted by the participants' instructors in their natural work settings. A total of five participants were involved across the three studies. Very few differences were found under the choice and no-choice conditions. More research is needed to examine the role of reinforcement history in establishing stimulus control effects of choice.

Little research has examined how stimulus modalities influence choice responding. Should choice alternatives be presented using tangibles, pictures, or verbal descriptions? How should caregivers decide which modality to use? We have completed several studies to examine how discrimination skills, as measured by the Assessment of Basic Learning Abilities test, interact with choice stimulus modalities to influence responding. Our results suggest that for persons with developmental disabilities with limited or no communication skills, the ability to make simple visual, visual matching to sample, and auditory-visual discriminations should be the prime determinant of stimulus modalities in choice presentation and preference assessment.