3- Reinforcement arrangements and applied to settings 1: selecting reinforcers and contingencies Flashcards by Kathleen Dugan

Simplest
arrangement; deliver a discrete consequence for each discrete response
 Not common

Continuous reinforcement:

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

: Reinforcement only sometimes follows the target response

-more common

Intermittent reinforcement

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Reinforcement is provided for the first response that follows some amount of time
Two types:

Fixed interval

Variable interval

Interval schedules:

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Reinforcer delivered contingent on first response after some constant time period has elapsed

Fixed-interval (FI):

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Similarly arrange reinforcers contingent on the first response after a specified time, but the time varies from one reinforcer to the next

Variable-interval (VI):

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Arranges reinforcers for the last of a number of responses that varies from one reinforcer to the next.

Variable ratio

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Reinforcement is provided following a pre-specified number of responses

There are two varieties of ratio schedules:

Fixed Ratio FR

_Variable Ratio VR

Ratio schedules

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Deliver reinforcer after the last of a fixed number of responses

 Fixed ratio (FR

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Deliver stimuli known in other contexts to be reinforcers solely on the basis of time, independent of responding

In a Fixed time schedule that Reinforcer is delivered after some constant time period has elapsed

A Variable time (VT) Similarly arranges reinforcers after a specified time, but the time varies from one reinforcer to the next

Response-independent time-based) schedule

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Of low rate (DRL)t s without response, then 1 response

Of High Rate (DRH) 1 response within t s or less of last response

Of other behavior (DRO) t s without a response

Of alternative behavior (DRA) Contingent on alternative response, often in absence of target response

Some other basic Schedules

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

When a reinforcer follows a response, it’s effect depends on its relation not only to that response but also to other responses preceding it

All are followed by the reinforcer even
though only the last response produced it

 E.g., if an error is immediately followed by
a reinforced correct response in an
instructional procedure, that reinforcer will
probably strengthen the error along with
the correct response, at least temporarily

Delay Contingncies

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Response classes one wishes to
strengthen may vary in terms of how
well established they are.

From Not at all established to fully established but unmotivated

Selecting responses

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Task materials and relevant instructions do not occasion predetermined level of performance in absence of prompts

Skill deficit

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

: The skill is intact, but the person is unmotivated to respond under appropriate stimulus conditions

can be accurately distinguished from skill deficits on basis of whether supplemental reinforcement for correct responding rapidly increases accuracy

Performance (or motivational deficit)

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

 If reinforcement contingency very rapidly eliminates a performance deficit, the skill must already have been learned

 Skills deficits, on the other hand, may
require different interventions depending
on the learner’s abilities and whether some of the skill has already been learned

Performance or Skill Deficit?

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Some property of responding is gradually changed by differentially reinforcing successive approximations to target behavior

Extinction increases RESPONSE Variability (Some behavior must be already occurring )

Frequent reinforcer delivery can result in satiation and may strengthen early responses

Infrequent delivery may decrease or extinguish responding

Shaping

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

May aide in Shaping

Used as a systematic way to decide which approximations to reinforce and how often

Specifies changes in reinforcement CRITERIA (e.g., based on latency, effort, location or duration) as behavior moves toward the shaping target

To be reinforced, the next response must fall
into some PORTION of the sampled distribution
(e.g., above the 70th percentile)

The reinforcement criterion changes as progress is made toward the target

Lag Schedule is an example

Percentile Schedules

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Use;

Extinction induced variation

Lag- reinforcement schedules
- A Type of percentile schedule
Lag = number of responses separating the current response from an earlier one like it

 In a lag x reinforcement schedule, the
current response is reinforced if it differs
from the last x preceding responses along
the specified dimension from an earlier one like it

Ex, Shows an increased Variety of block building structures
Some additional training sometimes required.

To increase response diversity

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Often used when a skill DEFICIT present

Multiple types of Prompting  strategies
   least to most
   Verbal
   Gestural
   Physical guidance
   May include allowing some time for independent responding.

When prompting us required, question where in the sequence to deliver reinforcer
• Reinforcing only unprompted correct Responses may lead to INFREQUENT…., Reinforcers
•Reinforcing physically guided responses: Risk strengthening behavior that will not generalize beyond the learning setting

Prompting

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Research has examined differential reinforcement of prompted and unprompted responding to achieve this goal, using:

Different reinforcement schedules
Different quality reinforcers

To Promote INDEPENDENT responding:

Ultimate goal of prompting is too…

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Video ex;

Three conditions:

CRF/CRF (Independent and prompted, respectively
CRF/FR 3
CRF/EXT

Differential reinforcement: an unprompted response got food and praise while a prompted response got praise only.

Non differential reinforcement: Unprompted and prompted responses both get reinforcers and praise

Least to most prompting (example)

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

May be more RAPIDLY acquired or increase more reliably when Unprompted responses differentially reinforced (no reinforcement for
prompted responses). OR..

…Higher reinforcement rates arranged for
independent than for prompted responses

Independent responding

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

naturally related to the responses that produces

An intrinsic reward

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Arbitrarily related to the responses that produce it. Example, music is an intrinsic outcome of playing an instrument, the music teachers praise Is extrinsic To the playing.

Extrinsic rewards

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Reinforcement contingencies (Extrinsic rewards) Lead to decrements enjoyment (Intrinsic rewards) and thus result in decreases in engagement. Fueled controversy regarding use of reinforcement in educational settings ..”Extrinsic motivators – including A’ S, sometimes praise, and other words are not merely an affective over the long haul but counterproductive with respect to things that concern us most: desire to learn, commitment to good values, and so on Alfie KOHN, educational leadership Strongest detrimental effect when tangible given for performance independent delivery

Overjustification hypothesis- Extrinsic reinforcement and intrinsic reinforcement

Meta-Analysis of available research using effect sizes. Separated effects according to reward type: Reward for what (Quality dependent, completion dependent, performance independent What sort of reward (Tangible, verbal) Examined separate affects on ENGAGEMENT (free time) And attitudes towards task Calculation of effect sizes: Experimental group mean - control group mean divided by pooled standard deviation

Overjustification study:Eisenberger & Cameron (1996):

Interpretation of effect sizes: EF < 1 EFFECT of the independent variable: (detrimental effects Of reward) EF > than 1 = no effect of the independent variable (No detrimental effects)

Eisenberger & Cameron (1996): Overjustification

SATIATION especially when reinforcers increase task engagement or less and motivation is examined for brief periods immediately after reward period.

(Overjustification ) Effects In IDD | What may account for what appears to be less and intrinsic motivation for people with developmental disabilities?

Examined role of concurrently available ALTERNATIVE activities and SATIATION in “Overjustification General procedures: (A) Baseline: No programmed consequences for engagement with target activity (B) Reinforcement: Piece of preferred food contingent on 30 s engagement with target activity (A) Return to baseline: No programmed consequences for engagement with target activity

Overjustification |  Peters & Vollmer (2014):

1. Contrast Effects | 2. Learned helplessness

Accounts for intrinsic motivation And learned helplessness phenomenon

1. Changes in rate of reinforcement under one condition that can produce an opposite change in rate of responding in another condition.

Contrast affect

In performance-independent reward, “It | doesn’t matter how well I do

Learned helplessness phenomena | Over justification effect

More pronounced when behavior already occurs at a high level • We generally do not arrange reinforcement contingencies for behaviors already occurring at high rates Reinforcement systems depend on task completion, performance quality, or both…reward procedures not reliably found to reduce intrinsic task interest  Some effects may be best attributed to satiation, especially when reward does increase engagement in the response and the effects are measured immediately afterwards  Quality-dependent verbal rewards actually have a positive effect on intrinsic interest

Addressing Overjustification hypothesis

Just a prediction Prediction Conducted under extremely LOW effort requirements, often with simplistic responses Predictions made under these conditions do not necessarily guarantee the utility of the stimulus in actual training or treatment Therefore, the predictions of These should be verified under conditions that more closely parallel actual training contexts such as: Actual work , Realistic schedules ...Enter, reinforcer assessments…

Stimulus preference assessments | SPAs

General experimental arrangements:  Single-operant arrangement  Concurrent-schedule arrangement  Progressive ratio schedule arrangements  Demand curves

reinforcer assessments

most commonly used PA Single reinforcement schedule is Arranged for a single response FR schedule DV = response rate or frequency Compare to baseline rates

Single-operant arrangement

In theory, in this PA, the larger the increase in responding, the more potent the reinforcer However, response rate may be poor index of relative reinforcer value because variables other than the strength of the reinforcer can impact responding E.g., “ceiling effects” mask differences in relative reinforcer efficacy

Single-operant arrangement

More sensitive test of relative reinforcer effectiveness Multiple response options CONCURRENTLY available, Each associated with a distinct stimulus delivered contingent upon appropriate response DV is relative response allocations across available alternatives Often a control condition

Concurrent-Schedule Arrangement

Relative versus absolute value: •may be sensitive to small differences in reinforcer value •However, just because a reinforcer is less preferred in This arrangement, it may nonetheless be an effective reinforcer in an absolute sense • May mask reinforcer effects for lower preference stimuli

Concurrent-Schedule Arrangement

Special type of single-operant arrangement • Differ from typical single-operant arrangements with respect to how the schedule is thinned -Ratio requirement increases systematically within a session, across successive “trials” -Session ends when participant ceases to respond for pre-determined amount of time Dependent measure, aka, break point,” is the value of the last completed schedule requirement Provide an estimate of the amount of responding one is willing to emit towards gaining a reinforcer Stimuli of different preference levels may produce equal results in how fast an individual might work But different results and how much work is done.

Progressive Ratio Schedule Arrangement

When all else being equal As unit price increases Demand (consumption) decreases And vice versa Demand Curve: Relates to Unit price of the commodity and.,the Total amount of a reinforcer that is consumed Allow one to look at choices under conditions of asymmetricalEnforcers and under various conditions of constraint.

Law of Demand:

Provides an estimate of the amount of responding one is willing to emit towards gaining a reinforcer Stimuli of different preference levels may produce equal results in how “fast” an individual might work, but different results in “how much” work is done

break point

methods used to identify stimuli that may function as reinforcers Prediction: The Higher the preference of stimuli the more effective the reinforcers Two step process: 1. Conduct SPA to determine its predictions about relative reinforcer efficacy 2. Test those predictions using one of the REINFORCER assessment methods just described There are three general categories.. see next card

Stimulus Preference Assessments

Three general categories 1. Indirect preference assessment (client or caregiver report) 2. Naturalistic (in-vivo) DIRECT observation 3. Direct preference assessment (free operant or approach based) These differ in effort and accuracy

Stimulus Preference Assessments

Indirect PA Advantage- Least effortful Limitations: subjective, results do Not always correspond to direct PA’s Naturalistic observation Advantage: objective, more valid than indirect PA Limitations: time-consuming, limited to stimuli available and natural environment Direct PA Advantage: most accurate, stimuli not limited Limitations: time-consuming

Preference assessment – effort and accuracy

Compare a teacher and stimulus preference assessment ranking Found a strong positive correlation of 1/9 cases and a negative correlation of 5/9 cases. Presented HP stimuli contingent upon occurrence of a response  Conclude: Direct assessment methods more accurate in determining reinforcers than Indirect assessment

Accuracy of Caregiver Rankings Cote, Thompson

During this preference assessment, items are presented systematically to produce preference HIERARCHIES Variations differ with respect to how many items are presented during a given trial Preference hierarchies are derived from calculations of the number of times a stimulus is SELECTED given the number of times each is available

Approach or selection-based preference assessments Identifying Stimulus Preferences

Place items, one at a time in front of the person • Typically, 10 trials per item Measure whether or not they approach the item Hierarchy based on: Approaches/trials Simple, includes large number of stimuli but may be prone to false positives.

Single-Item/Approach Method/AKA single-stimulus assessment

Stimuli presented in pairs Continue to present item in pairs until Each item has been paired once with every other item (all pair-wise permutations)  Number of trials = n (n-1) / 2, where n = total number of stimuli included  E.g., for 5 stimuli, 5 (4) / 2 = 10 trials Record which of the two items they approach including:! • Selection = brief access • Attempts to select both that were blocked Hierarchy based on:• Approaches/trials More sensitive To relative preference and also includes a large number of stimuli but is time consuming And there is a potential for a side bias

Paired-stimulus PA (AKA – forced-choice PA)

Present all items in the array Simultaneously ``` Participants select one from among all items (or remaining items) during each trial ``` Two Variations. 1. With replacement (MSW) – • Selected items are returned to the array -Provides info on the single most preferred stimulus 2. Without replacement (MSWO) – • Selected items are NOT returned to the array -Provides more information about preferences among the array Brief but may limit the number of items included and it can be prone to save the best for last.

Multiple-Stimulus PAs

Reinforcing PHYSICALLY guided responses risks strengthening behavior that will not....

generalize beyond the Learning setting.

Used when target responses are sufficiently complex or of sufficiently low probability that they are unlikely to be emitted without this gradual intervention

Shaping

Type of Percentile Schedule - Lag = number of responses separating the current response from an earlier one like it In a lag x reinforcement schedule, the current response is reinforced if it DIFFERS from the last x preceding responses along the specified dimension Ex., Lag 3

Lag Reinforcement Schedule

Items are presented to the individual and the proportion of time spent engaging with the items is recorded Arranged in two ways: 1. For Free operant (or multiple item) Cesc meant all items are presented SIMULTANEOUSLY 2. In Single item presentation each item is presented INDIVIDUALLY Several times.

Duration based preference assessment

Variation of duration based assessment Used to determine the extent to which stimuli displace problem behavior. Two measures are taken simultaneously: 1. Stimulus engagement 2. Problem behavior Stimuli selected based on combined it measures

Competing stimulus preference assessment.

Use vocal or pictorial presentations: Vocal assessments: ask what they want Pictorial assessments – when you present pictures of stimuli

Use for Inclusion of the complex stimuli not easily presented on table top such as community activities, bike rides or swimming

Variables to consider: Abilities Position bias Problem behavior Require different skills to make Valid selections. important to consider Pre-requisite skills specific to each type of assessment In relation to participants current skills with selecting a method

Selecting a preference assessment

Single stimulus - Approach response Paired stimulus – approach response, visual scanning, possible position bias Multiple stimulus – approach response, visual scanning, possible position bias Duration – approach response Pictorial SPA - Auditory match to sample

Prerequisite skills to consider when selecting a preference assessment method

Individuals with profound disabilities who do not possess prerequisite scanning and motor skills for approach response cannot participate in traditional SPAs Other options - Microswitches ) - Indices of happiness

SPA

Trained individuals to email small motor movements e.g.. Lifting head, to assess stimuli Attached to body parts then measured number and duration of motor movements.

Microswitch

Identified high preference and low preference items in SS SPA presented for 1 to 3 minutes, 2 times per session and measured indices of Happiness and unhappiness

INDICES of happiness and unhappiness

Selection is controlled by location rather than by the items themselves Participants I always select the item on the left went to items are presented in the paired stimulus S PA. Eliminating can be difficult but has proven successful in some cases

Position Bias

Bourret, Iwata Look up position biases for three individuals * QUALITY training- Gave participants a choice between known non-preferred stimulus and preferred stimulus used in original SPA. * Worked for us some not all. • MAGNITUDE Training with error correction. ——Magnitude of one option was five times greater than the other Error correction: selection of smaller magnitude resulted in five re-presentations of the trial, selection of small option was blocked

Eliminating position biases

Changing to VERTICAL placement of stimuli, holding stimuli directly in front of participant and placing items in opposite corners of Room and having participant walk to selected item. If position Biases persist, it may be necessary to assess preferences using the SS or DURATION base procedures

Other possible methods to eliminate position bias

Can be distinguished from skill deficits on basis of weather supplemental reinforcement for correct responding rapidly increase accuracy

Performance deficit

Requires experience -Some behavior is already occurring - Frequent reinforcer delivery can result in satiation and may strengthen early responses - Infrequent delivery may decrease or extinguish responding

Shaping

Reinforcer assessment in which the reinforcer. efficacy of a single item is tested by comparing levels. of a response when it is delivered as a consequence. to levels observed during baseline (no consequence) Single Stimulus Preference Assessments, also known as “successive choice” assessments, are conducted by providing a single item to a child, and recording his behavioral response to each item, as well as the duration of his engagement with each item. Although Single Stimulus Preference Assessments may not be as accurate at determining preferences as MSWOs, MSWs, and Paired Stimulus Preference Assessments, these are appropriate for children who are unable to select between highly-preferred and low-preferred items. For example, if you conduct a Paired Stimulus Preference Assessment and noticed that the child always selects items from one side (i.e., side bias) or always attempts to take both presented items, a Single Stimulus Preference Assessment should be used instead.

Single-operant arrangement

Identified preferences w/ paired-stimulus assessment  Compared “accuracy” (how often known preferred food chosen in 2-choice trials) under 3 conditions 1. Object: Presented actual items 2. Spoken: “Do you want X or Y” 3. Picture: Presented pictures of the items  Examined correspondence of accuracy as a function of abilities on the Assessment of Basic Learning Abilities (AB Conclude: Verbal and pictorial SPAs can be accurate, but reserve them for individuals with established discrimination abilities

Conyers et al. (2002):

 Time  Function of problem behavior  Can stimulus be delivered after selection

Other considerations when selecting | an SPA method

``` f, FO, SS, or MSWO may be more appropriate than PS assessment  MSWO proposed as assessment that required less time to implement than a PS assessment • DeLeon and Iwata (1996): PS and MSWO methods generated similar preference hierarchies, but MSWO assessment required fewer trials and completed in approximately half the time ``` ``` But, fewer stimuli can be assessed with MSWO, therefore:  SS if one wishes to include a large number of stimuli  PS if one has ample time to complete assessment ```

time is of issue

may impact choice of SPA method  Kang et al. (2011): Analysis of interaction between problem behavior maintained by different reinforcers and different types of SPAs  Children with problem behavior sensitive to tangible, attention, and escape  Conducted 3 forms of preference assessments (PS, MSWO, Free Operant)  Examine which forms interact with which functions ``` Conclusion  PS and MSWO evoke problem behavior maintained by tangible reinforcers • FO does not  FO evoked problem behavior maintained by attention • PS and MSWO do no ```

Function of problem behavior

 Selection responses typically result in the opportunity for a participant to consume the chosen item  Under some circumstances, it may not be practical to deliver an item immediately following a selection response (e.g., community activity)  Can this impact accuracy? Hanley, Iwata, & Lindberg (1999):  Evaluated preferences using pictures  During each assessment trial, three pictures were presented simultaneously to participants  Two potential reinforcers and presumably neutral activity  Two experimental conditions:  No access: Selection did not produce programmed consequences  Access: Selection resulted in 2 min access In most cases, differentiated preference hierarchies established only when selected items were immediately delivered following selection

Considerations: Contingent | Delivery

Kuhn, DeLeon, Terlonge, & Goysovich (2006):  Evaluated preferences using verbal SPA  Two experimental conditions 1. Verbal: “Would you rather have X or Y?”; selection did not produce programmed consequences 2. Verbal-plus-Tangible: Experimenter presented two stimuli and asked, “Would you rather have X or Y?”; selection resulted in 30 s access  Followed by concurrent-schedule reinforcer assessment Different preference hierarchies generated for all participants  During reinforcer assessments: Items ranked high in the verbal-plus-tangible assessment functioned as more effective reinforcers than items ranked as highly preferred on verbal- only assessments  Providing item does matter  Contingent delivery identifies stimuli more likely to function as reinforcers

Contingent Delivery

 What type of stimuli do you include in a preference assessment?  How do you pick which exact stimuli to include?  Does it matter if you mix up all kinds of items in the same assessment?  Can you use praise with children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD)? How do you even assess social stimuli?

Considerations: Reinforcer | Selection

 Is it easily replenished?  Does it cost much?  Does it fit naturally in the environment in which it will be used?  Can its use cause other sorts of detrimental effects?  Does its effectiveness wane easily across short periods of time?  Does its delivery disrupt ongoing behavior?

Ecological Fit of Reinforcers

 Although indirect SPAs may not be all that accurate when used alone, some advocate for their use in helping to construct a stimulus array for direct SPAs  Fisher et al. (1996):  Caregivers ranked standard list of items  Caregivers then completed RAISD and rank ordered items from the RAISD  Paired-stimulus SPA then conducted  Results compared across 3 assessments Fisher et al. (1996), results:  Top-ranked items identified by caregiver predictions based upon RAISD more preferred than the top-ranked items identified by predictions based upon a standard list of items  Thus, while caregiver reports may not consistently identify the most preferred items, they may play an important role in constructing a stimulus pool that includes the most effective reinforcers

Selecting Stimuli for Inclusion

```  What happens if you include different types of stimuli in the same SPA?  DeLeon, Iwata, & Roscoe (1997):  Conducted preference assessments with mixed (food and leisure items) arrays  Repeated preference assessments, minus the food items  Assessed whether initially LP activities functioned as reinforcers ``` ``` Conclude  Food items often downward displace leisure items in mixed arrays  But those leisure items might be effective reinforcers nonetheless — assess separately! ```

SPA: Mixed Arrays

``` Arguments in favor of praise/social reinforcers  Natural in the classroom  Does not interrupt responding  No cost other than caregiver effort  Takes little time  May be less subject to satiation  Behaviors developed using social reinforcers may be more easily maintained in generalization settings  May increase task interest ``` ``` However,  Praise not effective for all • Hence, it is important to assess as we do with other reinforcers  Social reinforcers may be difficult in incorporate into preference assessment • May require use of pictorial SPA  Children with ASD less sensitive to social stimuli as reinforcers? ```

SPA: Praise and | Other Social Stimuli

Preference for social stimuli among persons with ASD  Somewhat mixed results  Celani (2002): Preference for contexts devoid of social interaction  Call, Shillingsburg, Bowen, Reavis, & Findley (2013): Children with ASD may exhibit indifference towards various types of social interactions Goldberg, Allman, Hagopian, Triggs, Frank-Crawford, Mostofsky, Denkcla, & DeLeon (in preparation)  Children with and without ASD  Identified two groups of stimuli • Social stimuli: Activities completed with mom • Nonsocial stimuli: Activities completed by self  Then conducted pictorial SPA and PR assessments with social and nonsocial stimuli Photos taken of participant engaging in activity with mom (social stimuli only) or activity alone (nonsocial stimuli only ``` Dangerous to assume that children with ASD will not find social interactions reinforcing As in all cases of determining reinforcer effectiveness, there are great differences across individuals ```

Social Reinforcers and ASD

```  Social reinforcers often difficult to include in preference assessments  Smaby, McDonald, Ahearn, & Dube (2007):  Conducted brief reinforcer assessments for social stimuli  Rapid alternation  Social consequence vs. extinction  Eliminates difficulty of incorporating social stimuli in preference assessment ```

Assessing Social Stimuli

Dozier, Iwata, Thomason-Sassi, Worsdell, Wilson (2012):  Compared two pairing procedures • Noncontingent pairing: Primary reinforcers delivered freely and attention is consistently provided during consumption • Contingent pairing: Primary reinforcers and attention simultaneously provided contingent on the completion of a task  Following either pairing procedure, the effectiveness of attention in the absence of food is measured through task completion Noncontingent pairing ineffective Contingent pairing more effective, but only in about half of cases

Establishing Social Stimuli as | Reinforcers

1. If the individual has the requisite visual scanning and motor skills, PS assessment should be used if time permits, MSWO if time is limited. 2. If motor skills are intact but the individual cannot visually scan an array of stimuli, the SS assessment may be most appropriate. 3. For individuals with side biases, the SS or FO assessments should be considered if training to overcome the side bias proves ineffective. 4. For persons who lack the ability to visually scan an array and who have limited motor control, the use of technology (e.g., microswitches) or indices of happiness could prove useful in aiding in the identification of preferred stimuli. 5. Complex stimuli can be assessed through the use of pictorial or verbal preference assessments if the individual has the requisite identity matching skills (visual MTS for the pictorial assessment and auditory MTS for the verbal assessment). 6. If the individual engages in problem behavior maintained by access to preferred stimuli, the FO assessment should be considered. If the problem behavior is maintained by attention, one should use the PS, SS, or MSWO assessment. 7. When possible, always try to provide access to the selected stimulus 8. When identifying the items to be included in the preference assessment, one should consider both the ecological fit and likely effectiveness. 9. Separate preference assessments should be conducted for different classes of stimuli

Some General Recommendations