View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Comparison of Picture- and Video-Presentation Preference Assessments for Social Interactions

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Comparison of Picture- and Video-Presentation Preference Assessments for Social Interactions
Language: English
Authors: Davis, Tonya (ORCID 0000-0002-9349-0736), Weston, Regan, Hodges, Abby, Gerow, Stephanie
Source: Journal of Behavioral Education. Jun 2022 31(2):367-387.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 21
Publication Date: 2022
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Students with Disabilities, Positive Reinforcement, Interaction, Interpersonal Relationship, Video Technology, Pictorial Stimuli, Preferences, Males, Developmental Disabilities, Operant Conditioning, Evaluation Methods, Social Reinforcement
DOI: 10.1007/s10864-020-09402-5
ISSN: 1053-0819
Abstract: Effective training programs for individuals with disabilities often involve the use of positive reinforcement. Social interactions have many benefits over other forms of reinforcement, but more research is needed to determine how to identify social interactions that serve as reinforcers. In the first experiment, we evaluated the use of two procedures to assess preference for social interactions: a video-presentation and a picture-presentation paired-choice preference assessment among five boys diagnosed with a developmental disability. In the second experiment, we conducted concurrent operant reinforcer assessments to validate the results of the preference assessments among three of the five participants in which at least one assessment indicated differentiated preferences. The video-presentation and picture-presentation preference assessments resulted in the identification of the same high-preferred social interactions for two of the three participants, and subsequent reinforcer assessments indicated these social interactions served as reinforcers. The results of the video- and picture-presentation preference assessments differed for the final participant. The results of a concurrent operant reinforcer assessment indicated the social interaction identified as highest preferred in the video-presentation assessment served as a relatively more effective reinforcer. Results of this study indicate that video- and picture-presentation preference assessment results in differentiate responding for some participants, but not others; however, reasons for these results remain unknown. Moreover, a video-presentation preference assessments may be more effective in identifying social reinforcers, but evidence should be considered; preliminary and future research is warranted.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2022
Accession Number: EJ1338395
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGgsyHiMZlf_vsnxubFh17vAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDLfiPLnhWTJGtCzc2QIBEICBmv92FcFhEgIL1rAeCKEP6tmH69DjcCRLRvkOO8IjYp1C5om84viTGj6De3NaX1zSIpIEBQAJfHvkrrHZH9YwXYqQ0FmmHb8kIrIjGLKxevbO4Sjni54YW3nbNjSStVIJbSvwwExSHFQRP0Q-dW4VXwRPIBKlNTwOUqKEE0AcssaQrW7fv7YsdOLjFAVxoy0PclsX8pVfrjUOPLI=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0157411775;41z01jun.22;2022Jun15.06:02;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0157411775-1">Comparison of Picture- and Video-Presentation Preference Assessments for Social Interactions </title> <p>Effective training programs for individuals with disabilities often involve the use of positive reinforcement. Social interactions have many benefits over other forms of reinforcement, but more research is needed to determine how to identify social interactions that serve as reinforcers. In the first experiment, we evaluated the use of two procedures to assess preference for social interactions: a video-presentation and a picture-presentation paired-choice preference assessment among five boys diagnosed with a developmental disability. In the second experiment, we conducted concurrent operant reinforcer assessments to validate the results of the preference assessments among three of the five participants in which at least one assessment indicated differentiated preferences. The video-presentation and picture-presentation preference assessments resulted in the identification of the same high-preferred social interactions for two of the three participants, and subsequent reinforcer assessments indicated these social interactions served as reinforcers. The results of the video- and picture-presentation preference assessments differed for the final participant. The results of a concurrent operant reinforcer assessment indicated the social interaction identified as highest preferred in the video-presentation assessment served as a relatively more effective reinforcer. Results of this study indicate that video- and picture-presentation preference assessment results in differentiate responding for some participants, but not others; however, reasons for these results remain unknown. Moreover, a video-presentation preference assessments may be more effective in identifying social reinforcers, but evidence should be considered; preliminary and future research is warranted.</p> <p>Keywords: Preference assessment; Reinforcer assessment; Social interaction; Social reinforcer</p> <hd id="AN0157411775-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Research has highlighted the importance of identifying potent reinforcers prior to the implementation of behavior change programs to promote meaningful outcomes in both skill acquisition and behavior reduction programs (Weeden and Poling [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref1">19</reflink>]). Reinforcers in behavior change programs often consist of activities, toys, and/or consumable items (Smaby et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref2">18</reflink>]). However, the use of these forms of tangible reinforcement can result in a number of challenges. Edible forms of reinforcement can lead to excessive caloric intake if delivered too frequently and therefore require monitoring of the total amount of food or drink consumed (Clay et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>]). Moreover, access to tangible reinforcers is associated with higher levels of stereotyped behavior (Kang et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref4">9</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref5">10</reflink>]). In addition, both toys and consumable forms of reinforcement are highly susceptible to the effect of motivating operations, which can decrease the efficacy of the behavior change program (e.g., O'Reilly et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref6">14</reflink>]).</p> <p>Presenting social interactions as potential reinforcers in behavior change programs has received increasing attention in the recent literature. Social interactions are cost-effective, readily available to use, and might be more socially acceptable than some tangible stimuli, as there is less stigma surrounding such interactions (Clay et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref7">3</reflink>]; Parsonson et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref8">16</reflink>]). For example, if social interactions are effective reinforcers for a child with autism, using social interactions may mimic typical forms of reinforcement and improve the social validity of the intervention as compared to time with a tablet computer. For these reasons, researchers are increasingly suggesting the use of social interactions as the primary form of reinforcement within behavior change programs.</p> <p>Direct preference assessments are often used to identify reinforcers for use within a behavior change program (Kang et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref9">9</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref10">10</reflink>]; Weeden and Poling [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref11">19</reflink>]). Direct preference assessments involve presenting one or more stimuli to the individual, then observing his or her behavior to determine which item(s) are the most preferred, of the items presented (e.g., DeLeon and Iwata [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref12">6</reflink>]; Fisher et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref13">7</reflink>]; Pace et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref14">15</reflink>]). Direct preference assessments are considered the gold standard for identifying preferences among individuals with communication deficits, as they provide a direct, systematic method for identifying stimuli that can be presented as potential reinforcers (Fisher et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref15">7</reflink>]; Weeden and Poling [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref16">19</reflink>]). Direct preference assessments are typically conducted with small tangible items presented within reach, so the participant can physically touch his or her selection (Hagopian et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref17">8</reflink>]). However, it is difficult to present social interactions within this typical format (Clark et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref18">2</reflink>]).</p> <p>Alternative presentation formats have been explored to assess preferences for stimuli that cannot be placed within direct reach. These preference assessments usually involve presenting pictures or videos of the stimuli. For example, Mechling and Moser ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref19">12</reflink>]) successfully identified preferred videos by presenting digital photographs representing each video within a direct preference assessment. Brodhead et al. ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref20">1</reflink>]) conducted preference assessments in which short videos representing activities with large stimuli (e.g., wagon ride, playground equipment) were presented to the individuals. This research indicates that video- and picture- presentation formats can be used to identify highly preferred stimuli.</p> <p>The recent literature has also examined the use of three alternative presentation formats when evaluating preference for social interactions specifically. The presentation formats include live-presentation (Clay et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref21">3</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref22">4</reflink>]), picture-presentation (Kelly et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref23">11</reflink>]; Nuernberger et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref24">13</reflink>]), and video-presentation (Davis et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref25">5</reflink>]; Wolfe et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref26">20</reflink>]). Preliminary research indicates the results of these three alternative presentation formats for social interactions have matched the results of reinforcer assessments (Clark et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref27">2</reflink>]; Davis et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref28">5</reflink>]; Nuernberger et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref29">13</reflink>]). For example, Davis et al. ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref30">5</reflink>]) examined a method for identifying individuals' preference for different social interactions using video-presentation in a paired-stimulus format. Following the video-presentation preference assessment, the authors evaluated the degree to which reinforcer efficacy corresponded with the preference rank order utilizing a progressive ratio analysis. They found that the hierarchy of preferred social interactions that was established during the preference assessment corresponded with the number of responses emitted by participants during the progressive ratio analysis. Wolfe et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref31">20</reflink>]) also examined the use of video-based preference assessments by applying the procedures to social interactions. After evaluating preference for social interactions using video-presentation, the authors compared the results of the preference assessments with and without access to the social interactions following selection to determine the extent to which contingent access was required to obtain accurate results. The authors then used a concurrent operant arrangement to evaluate whether highly preferred interactions functioned as reinforcement when delivered contingent upon a required response. The authors concluded that for some individuals with autism spectrum disorder, video-based preference assessments can identify social interactions that will potentially serve as reinforcement, regardless of whether access to the specific social interaction is provided when it is selected.</p> <p>However, no study has directly compared two or more alternative presentation formats to identify preference among social interactions. More research is needed to further explore the effectiveness of alternative presentation formats across additional participants. The purpose of this study is to assess the correspondence of the video-presentation and picture-presentation preference assessments and to evaluate the extent to which identified highly preferred social interactions serve as reinforcers.</p> <hd id="AN0157411775-3">General Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0157411775-4">Participants, Setting, and Materials</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0157411775-5">Inclusion Criteria</hd> <p>To participate in this Study 1, participants had to meet two inclusion criteria. First, the participants' therapist reported the participant appeared to enjoy social interactions (e.g., initiated high fives, smiled in response to praise). Second, participants needed to demonstrate the ability to match objects to pictures and videos, which was assessed via an object-to-picture and object-to-video assessment. In the object-to-picture assessment, three stimuli were displayed on a table. A picture of one of the stimuli printed on a 22 cm by 28 cm white paper was presented, and the participant was asked to "find the match." In the object-to-video assessment, three stimuli were displayed on a table. A 3–5-s video of one of the objects was played on an iPad™ tablet, and the participant was asked to "find the match." Ten trials were presented per assessment; to proceed in the study, the participant was required to match at least 80% of trials. To participate in Study 2, participants have to meet one additional inclusion criterion. That is, at least one of the two preference assessments conducted in Study 1 needed to indicate differentiated preference for social interactions. Differentiated preference was defined as selecting one or more social interactions for at least 80% of opportunities.</p> <hd id="AN0157411775-6">Participants</hd> <p>Five boys recruited from a university-affiliated clinic that provided applied behavior analysis services participated in Study 1. Each participant attended the clinic twice a week to receive services to improve communication, play, and/or social skills. Laurence was a 6-year-old boy diagnosed with autism. He communicated vocally in full sentences, but had some limitations associated with articulation, vocabulary, and pragmatics. Rhett was a 5-year-old boy diagnosed with autism and a speech impairment. He communicated predominantly with phrases consisting of two word approximations. Tony was a 6-year-old boy diagnosed with autism. He spoke in multi-word sentences, but he was difficult to understand due to poor articulation. Hayes was a 10-year-old boy diagnosed with autism. Hayes communicated predominately in 2–3 word phrases. Topher was a 10-year-old boy diagnosed with Down syndrome. Topher communicated predominantly with gestures and phrases consisting of 2–3 word approximations with very poor articulation. Tony, Hayes, and Topher also participated in Study 2.</p> <hd id="AN0157411775-7">Experimenters</hd> <p>The first, second, and third authors implemented all procedures. The first author implemented all procedures for Tony and Topher, the second author implemented all procedures for Laurence and Hayes, and the third author implemented procedures for Rhett. All experimenters were Board Certified Behavior Analysts (BCBA), with the first author also holding the doctoral-level distinction (BCBA-D). The experimenters supervised ongoing skill acquisition programs in which the participants were enrolled; therefore, the experimenters had previous interactions with the participants for at least three months prior to beginning this study.</p> <hd id="AN0157411775-8">Setting</hd> <p>Sessions were conducted in therapy rooms at a university-affiliated applied behavior analysis clinic. Rooms were 2 × 2.5 m and contained a child-sized desk and chair. Only toys associated with the study procedures were available during sessions.</p> <hd id="AN0157411775-9">Study 1</hd> <p>In Study 1, the researchers conducted a video-presentation and a picture-presentation paired-choice preference assessment, with the order counterbalanced across participants. All five boys participated in Study 1.</p> <hd id="AN0157411775-10">Response Definitions and Measurement</hd> <p>Data were collected by BCBAs enrolled in a doctoral program and studying applied behavior analysis. Data were collected on the percentage of opportunities in which the child selected each social interaction during the preference assessment. A selection was defined as the participant touching the iPad or picture with a finger or hand within 10 s after the instruction to choose a social interaction.</p> <hd id="AN0157411775-11">Interobserver Agreement</hd> <p>A second observer collected data on 50%, 100%, 50%, 100%, and 100% of preference assessment trials for Laurence, Rhett, Tony, Hayes, and Topher, respectively. An agreement during the preference assessment was scored if both observers recorded the selection of the same social interaction during the trial. Interobserver agreement was calculated for preference assessment by dividing the number of agreements by the number of agreements plus disagreements and converting this to a percentage. Mean percentage agreement was 100% for all participants' preference assessments.</p> <hd id="AN0157411775-12">Procedures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0157411775-13">Paired-Stimulus Preference Assessment</hd> <p>The experimenter conducted a video-presentation and picture-presentation preference assessment with each participant. The order of the two preference assessments was counterbalanced across participants. The experimenter conducted the picture-presentation preference assessment first with Tony and Topher and the video-presentation preference assessment first with Laurence, Rhett, and Hayes. The video- and picture-presentation preference assessments were conducted across two consecutive therapy sessions in the same week for Laurence, Rett, and Tony. The video- and picture-presentation preference assessments were conducted on the same day for Hayes and Topher. Each preference assessment included the same six social interactions, identified via an open-ended informal interview with the participant's therapist. Table 1 includes a description of the social interactions for each participant's preference assessments.</p> <p>Table 1 Social interactions assessed across participants. Operational definitions of social interactions assessed across participants</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Participant</p></th><th align="left"><p>Label</p></th><th align="left"><p>Operational definition</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" rowspan="6"><p>Laurence</p></td><td align="left"><p>Fistbump</p></td><td align="left"><p>Experimenter makes a fist with their hand and makes contact with the participant's fist, and then, both individuals retract their fists back toward themselves while opening their hand</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Good Job</p></td><td align="left"><p>Experimenter vocally states, "you did a good job"</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Moving High five</p></td><td align="left"><p>Experimenter holds one hand up with open palm and requests a high five. As the participant moves his hands to deliver a high five, the experimenter quickly moves her hand away so that the participant has to "catch" her hand to make contact between the open palms</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Rock Star</p></td><td align="left"><p>Experimenter vocally states, "you are a rock star"</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Running Fingers</p></td><td align="left"><p>The experimenter and the participant place the tips of their index and the middle fingers on the table to simulate a stick figure's legs. The two sets of "legs" run toward each other and make contact as if crashing into one another</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Tickles</p></td><td align="left"><p>Making contact between fingertips and participant's sides, quickly moving fingers back and forth</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="6"><p>Rhett</p></td><td align="left"><p>Alight</p></td><td align="left"><p>Experimenter vocally states, "alright" with a higher-than-usual tone and drawing out the syllables</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Chase</p></td><td align="left"><p>Experimenter runs behind participant saying, "I'm going to get you" for approximately 3 s. Then, experimenter wraps arms around participant and says "I got you!"</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Good Job</p></td><td align="left"><p>Experimenter vocally states, "you did a good job"</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>High Five</p></td><td align="left"><p>Holding one hand up with open palm and making contact with participants open palm</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Swing</p></td><td align="left"><p>The experimenter wrapped her arms under the arms of the experimenter, lifted him from the ground, and swayed left to right to swing the participant's lower body from left to right</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Thumbs Up</p></td><td align="left"><p>Experimenter extends arm in the direction of the participant with fingers in a fist and thumb extended upward</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="12"><p>Tony</p><p>Hayes</p></td><td align="left"><p>Bee</p></td><td align="left"><p>Clasped hand moving around participant while experimenter vocalizes "zzzzz" for approximately 3 s. Then, experimenter's fingertips touch participant, vibrating slightly while experimenter says, "the bee got you"</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Chase</p></td><td align="left"><p>Experimenter runs behind participant saying, "I'm going to get you" for approximately 3 s. Then, experimenter wraps arms around participant and says "I got you!"</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Good Job</p></td><td align="left"><p>Experimenter vocally states, "you did a good job"</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>High five</p></td><td align="left"><p>Holding one hand up with open palm and making contact with participants open palm</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Rock Star</p></td><td align="left"><p>Experimenter vocally states, "you are a rock star"</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Tickles</p></td><td align="left"><p>Making contact between fingertips and participant's sides, quickly moving fingers back and forth</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Face Squid</p></td><td align="left"><p>Experimenter opens their hand, and their fingertips make contact with the participant's face while applying minimal pressure and vocalizing a "squish squish" sound</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Fistbump</p></td><td align="left"><p>Experimenter makes a fist with their hand and makes contact with the participant's fist, and then, both individuals retract their fists back toward themselves while opening their hand</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Good Job</p></td><td align="left"><p>Experimenter vocally states, "you did a good job"</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Hand Spider</p></td><td align="left"><p>Experimenter moves fingertips along the table toward the participant and then makes contact between the fingertips and participant's sides, quickly moving back and forth</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>High five</p></td><td align="left"><p>Holding one hand up with open palm and making contact with participants open palm</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Way to Go</p></td><td align="left"><p>Experimenter vocally states, "Way to go"</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" rowspan="6"><p>Topher</p></td><td align="left"><p>Fish Kisses</p></td><td align="left"><p>Experimenter clasps hands moving around the participant for approximately 3 s. Then, the experimenter's fingertips touch the participant's cheek while the experimenter makes audible kiss sound and says, "fish kisses"</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Good Job</p></td><td align="left"><p>Experimenter vocally states, "you did a good job"</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Handshake</p></td><td align="left"><p>Experimenter extends straight arm and grasps participant's hand in hers. Experimenter moves hand up and down 2–5 times</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Nice Work</p></td><td align="left"><p>Experimenter vocally states, "nice work"</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Noises</p></td><td align="left"><p>Experimenter leans toward participant and makes non-word vocalizations</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Thumbs Up</p></td><td align="left"><p>Experimenter extends arm in the direction of the participant with fingers in a fist and thumb extended upward</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>To account for position bias, the stimuli representing the social interaction (i.e., iPad for video-presentation or picture for picture-presentation) were paired with all other stimuli twice, once on the left and once on the right during both preference assessments. During both assessments, the social interaction was delivered for 3–7 s contingent upon selection. While this may appear brief relative to preference assessments conducted with tangible items, the duration was matched to the typical duration in which the social interaction would be delivered in the natural environment. For example, praise statements typically consist of a one-sentence statement and high fives are typically delivered one at a time, both of which last only a few seconds.</p> <p>The results of each preference assessment were used to identify high- and low-preferred social interactions. The experimenters calculated the percentage of opportunities in which the participant selected the stimulus. The high-preference stimulus was defined as the stimulus with the highest percentage and the low-preference stimulus was defined as the stimulus with the lowest percentage.</p> <hd id="AN0157411775-14">Video-Presentation Preference Assessment</hd> <p>The video-presentation preference assessment was similar to procedures outlined by Fisher et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref32">7</reflink>]), except that two identical iPad™ tablets were placed in front of the participant rather than two tangible items. Each tablet contained a 3–5-s video of the participant and experimenter engaging in a specific social interaction. The experimenter played the video on the left in its entirety and then the video on the right. The video was played only once per trial. After both videos were played, the experimenter instructed the participant to "Pick one."</p> <hd id="AN0157411775-15">Picture-Presentation Preference Assessment</hd> <p>The picture-presentation preference assessment was similar to procedures utilized for the video-presentation preference assessment, except that two photographs printed on 22 cm by 28 cm white paper were placed in front of the participant rather than two iPad™ tablets. Each paper was laminated and contained a photograph of the experimenter and the participant engaging in a social interaction. The pictures were obtained by pausing the videos to create a still picture. The lead experimenter selected two still shots that she thought best represented the social interaction. The photographs were presented to the other authors who had previously viewed the videos of the social interaction. They were asked to identify the picture that best represented the video. The picture most frequently selected among the authors was utilized for the picture-presentation preference assessment.</p> <p>The representation of a praise statement (e.g., experimenter saying, "Nice work") in a photograph presented a unique challenge because the salient feature of this social interaction (the vocal praise statement) is not captured in a photograph. Therefore, unedited photos contained no visual distinction between praise statements (e.g., "Nice work" versus "Good job"). Rather than utilizing arbitrary discriminative stimuli (e.g., colored shapes, arbitrary body positions for each praise statement), a text box was inserted in the photograph with the corresponding text statement. While it is noteworthy that none of the participants were capable of reading, any other visual distinction between photographs of the delivery of a praise statement would have been arbitrary.</p> <hd id="AN0157411775-16">Treatment Fidelity</hd> <p>A second observer collected data on the fidelity of implementation of preference assessment procedures. To measure treatment fidelity for the preference assessments, the observer noted if all procedures were followed accurately for each trial. The number of trials implemented correctly were divided by the total number of trials (<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref33">30</reflink>) and multiplied by 100 to convert to a percentage. A second observer collected data on treatment fidelity across 100% of the video- and picture-presentation preference assessment trials. Treatment fidelity for the implementation of video- and picture-presentation preference assessments was 97%.</p> <hd id="AN0157411775-17">Results and Discussion</hd> <p>The results of all preference assessments are presented in Fig. 1. Laurence's video-presentation preference assessment indicated <emph>Fistbump, Moving High Five, Running Fingers, and Tickles</emph> tied as his highest preferred social interactions and <emph>Good Job</emph> as his lowest preferred social interaction. Results of his picture-presentation preference assessment differed, with <emph>Fistbump</emph> and <emph>Rock Star</emph> tied as his highest preferred social interaction and <emph>Moving High Five</emph> and <emph>Tickles</emph> tied as his lowest preferred social interactions. No differentiated preference was identified in either preference assessment as no social interaction was selected for at least 80% of opportunities in either the video- or picture-presentation. In fact, both preference assessments indicated fairly consistent levels of preference across many of the social interactions evaluated (e.g., <emph>Fistbump, Moving High Five, Running Fingers, and Tickles</emph> all selected 70% of opportunities in the video-presentation assessment).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Preference assessment results</p> <p>Rhett's video-presentation preference assessment indicated <emph>High Five</emph> as his highest preferred social interactions and <emph>Chase</emph> as his lowest preferred social interaction. Results of his picture-presentation preference assessment differed, with <emph>Thumbs Up</emph> as his highest preferred social interaction, but <emph>Good Job</emph> and <emph>Swing</emph> tied as his lowest preferred social interactions. Similar to Laurence, no differentiated preference was identified in either preference assessment as no social interaction was selected for at least 80% of opportunities in either the video- or picture-presentation. In fact, across both assessments, every interaction was selected between 40 and 70% of opportunities, indicating evenly distributed selection.</p> <p>Tony's video-presentation preference assessment indicated <emph>Tickles</emph> as his highest preferred social interaction and <emph>High Five</emph> and <emph>Rock Star</emph> as his lowest preferred social interaction. Results of his picture-presentation preference assessment were similar, with <emph>Tickles</emph> also identified as his highest preferred social interaction and <emph>Rock Star</emph> identified as his lowest preferred social interactions. Both Tony's video- and picture- preference assessments had differentiated results. As a result, <emph>Tickles</emph> and <emph>Rock Star</emph> were evaluated in the concurrent operant reinforcer assessment.</p> <p>Both Hayes' video- and picture-presentation preference assessment indicated <emph>Face Squid</emph> as his highest preferred social interaction and <emph>Way to Go</emph> as his lowest preferred social interaction. Both Hayes' video- and picture- preference assessments had differentiated results. Therefore, <emph>Face Squid</emph> and <emph>Way to Go</emph> were evaluated in the concurrent operant reinforcer assessment.</p> <p>Topher's video-presentation preference assessment indicated <emph>Fish Kisses</emph> as his highest preferred social interaction and <emph>Handshake</emph> as his lowest preferred social interaction. His picture-presentation preference assessment indicated <emph>Nice Work</emph> as his highest preferred social interaction and <emph>Handshake</emph> as his lowest preferred social interaction. Although Topher's lowest preferred social interactions corresponded across assessments, there was very little correspondence across the two highest preferred social interactions. Specifically, in the video-presentation preference assessment, Topher selected <emph>Fish Kisses</emph> 100% of opportunities, but in the picture-presentation preference assessment, he only selected <emph>Fish Kisses</emph> 50% of opportunities. In the video-presentation preference assessment, Topher selected <emph>Nice Work</emph> 20% of opportunities, but in the picture-presentation preference assessment he selected <emph>Nice Work</emph> 70% of opportunities. It should be noted that the picture-presentation preference assessment did not meet the definition of a differentiated preference assessment (i.e., selecting one or more social interactions for at least 80% of opportunities participants); however, participants were only required to have one differentiated preference assessment to participate in Study 2 and Topher's video-presentation preference assessment results were differentiated. In order to validate the accuracy of the highest preferred social interaction across both preference assessments, <emph>Fish Kisses</emph>, identified as the highest preferred social interaction via the video-presentation, and <emph>Nice Work</emph>, identified as the highest preferred social interaction via the picture-presentation, were evaluated in the concurrent operant reinforcer assessment.</p> <p>The preference assessment results of three of the five participants resulted in differentiated responding among social interactions. For both Tony and Hayes, both the video- and picture-presentation results were differentiated. Topher's video-presentation results were differentiated, but his picture-presentation results were not.</p> <p>None of the results of Laurence and Rhett's preference assessments were differentiated. It is unclear why this was the case. It is possible that both participants preferred each social interaction about equally; that is, no preference hierarchy existed. It is also possible that each participant, in fact, strongly preferred one social interaction above the others, but neither assessment accurately identified this preference. Preference assessment for social interactions is a relatively new phenomenon compared to preference assessment for tangible items. It is possible that for some children, neither video- nor picture-presentation paired-stimulus formats are capable of identifying preferred social interactions. Due to a likely publication bias toward successful outcomes, it is important to consider assessment failures such as these to refine the methodology to obtain more helpful results.</p> <p>The preference assessments for Tony, Hayes, and Topher were differentiated. Therefore, it is necessary to determine if the social interactions identified as preferred also serve as a reinforcer. The purpose of Study 2 is to validate the results of the differentiated preference assessments.</p> <hd id="AN0157411775-18">Study 2</hd> <p>In Study 2, the researchers conducted a concurrent operant reinforcer assessment to validate results of the preference assessment. Three of the five participants, Tony, Hayes, and Topher, had differentiated preference assessment results and, therefore, participated in this study.</p> <hd id="AN0157411775-19">Response Definitions and Measurement</hd> <p>During the concurrent operant reinforcer assessment, data were collected on the number of LEGO<sups>®</sups> blocks stacked. Specifically, the number of LEGO<sups>®</sups> blocks stacked associated with each social interaction was recorded. A LEGO<sups>®</sups> block was considered stacked when it stood upright on the table or on top of another block.</p> <hd id="AN0157411775-20">Interobserver Agreement</hd> <p>A second observer collected data on 50%, 100%, and 80% of concurrent operant reinforcer assessment sessions for Tony, Hayes, and Topher, respectively. Interobserver agreement was calculated for the reinforcer assessment by dividing the smaller number of blocks stacked by the larger number and converting this to a percentage for each session. Mean percentage agreement was 100% for Tony, 99.7% for Hayes, and 99% for Topher.</p> <hd id="AN0157411775-21">Procedures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0157411775-22">Reinforcer Assessment</hd> <p>A concurrent operant reinforcer assessment was conducted to validate results of the preference assessment. Each reinforcer assessment consisted of at least five sessions, but sessions continued until a differentiated pattern of responding occurred. Each session was 5 min in length and included three response choices for the participants. Two target responses corresponded with a social interaction and one corresponded with no interaction (for the control response), with each response randomly paired with the consequence. The target response, stacking a certain color of LEGO<sups>®</sups> blocks, was selected because each participant could independently complete the task.</p> <p>The two social interactions included in the reinforcer assessment were selected based on the results of the preference assessments. If the video- and picture-presentation preference assessment results suggested the same high-preference social interactions, as with Tony and Haye's results, the reinforcer assessment included the high-preference and low-preference social interactions identified by both presentation formats. The purpose of this reinforcer assessment was to validate the results of both preference assessments. If the video- and picture-presentation preference assessment results suggested different high-preference social interactions, as with Topher's results, the reinforcer assessment included the high-preference social interactions identified in each preference assessment. The purpose of this assessment was to determine if one preference assessment more accurately identified a social interaction likely to serve as a reinforcer. It should be noted that the low-preference social interaction identified by both presentation formats in Topher's preference assessment results was not included in the reinforcer assessment because (a) we could identify the preference assessment format that more accurately identified a social interaction to serve as a reinforcer without the inclusion of a third social interaction and (b) the inclusion of a fourth set of colored LEGO<sups>®</sups> blocks may result in extended time to contact the contingencies of each sets of blocks, thus increasing the time to complete the reinforcer assessment and decreasing time Topher accessed his typical educational programming.</p> <p>Throughout each session, the experimenter placed three different colored sets of four LEGO<sups>®</sups> blocks on a table. In order to account for potential position bias, the placement of the LEGO<sups>®</sups> block stacks was randomly assigned to the left, middle or right of the table for each session. Prior to the start of each session, the experimenter stated the contingency. For example, the experimenter might say, "if you stack the red LEGOS<sups>®</sups>, you will get tickles" or "if you stack the green LEGOS<sups>®</sups>, nothing will happen." Additionally, the experimenter prompted the participant to complete each stack of LEGO<sups>®</sups> blocks, beginning with those on the left of the table. Contingent upon prompted completion, the experimenter delivered the relevant consequence. After one prompted trial per set of LEGO<sups>®</sups> blocks, the participant was told, "You can stack any LEGOS<sups>®</sups> you want." Contingent upon stacking four blocks of the same color, the experimenter provided the corresponding social interaction for 3–7 s or did not interact with the participant (for the control color). After reinforcer delivery, all stacked blocks were unstacked and placed back on the table. Again, the experimenter told the participant, "You can stack any LEGOS<sups>®</sups> you want."</p> <hd id="AN0157411775-23">Treatment Fidelity</hd> <p>A second observer collected data on the fidelity of implementation of reinforcer assessment procedures. To measure treatment fidelity for the reinforcer assessments, the observer recorded the number of steps conducted correctly each session. The number of steps implemented correctly was divided by the total number of steps (<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref34">12</reflink>) and multiplied by 100 to convert to a percentage. A second observer collected data on treatment fidelity across 35% of the reinforcer assessment sessions. Treatment fidelity for the implementation of the reinforcer assessments was 100%.</p> <hd id="AN0157411775-24">Results and Discussion</hd> <p>During the reinforcer assessment, Tony stacked a mean of 21.2 (range 0–36) LEGO<sups>®</sups> blocks per session for the social interaction identified as highest preferred across both preference assessments, <emph>Tickles</emph>. This was notably higher than the mean number of blocks stacked in conditions associated with his lowest preferred social interaction, <emph>Rock Star</emph> (<emph>M </emph>= 2.8; range 0–4) and control (<emph>M </emph>= 5.2; range 0–12). Differentiation between <emph>Tickles</emph> (highest preferred) and <emph>Rock Star</emph> (lowest preferred) as well as the control blocks was immediate and consistent, with the exception of session three in which very little responding occurred across all conditions. Moreover, the <emph>Tickles</emph> condition consisted of an increasing trend across sessions. The results of Tony's concurrent operant reinforcer assessment indicated that the social interaction identified as highest preferred in both the video- and picture-presentation preference assessments functioned as a reinforcer.</p> <p>During the reinforcer assessment, Hayes stacked a mean of 7.7 (range 2–12) LEGO<sups>®</sups> blocks per session for the social interaction identified as highest preferred across both preference assessments, <emph>Face Squid</emph>. This mean was markedly higher than the mean number of blocks stacked across conditions associated with his lowest preferred social interaction, <emph>Way to Go</emph> (<emph>M </emph>= 1.6; range 0–4) and control (<emph>M </emph>= 1.8; range 0–3). Differentiation between <emph>Face Squid</emph> (highest preferred) and <emph>Way to Go</emph> (lowest preferred) as well as the control blocks occurred during the fourth session and maintained across the remaining sessions. Moreover, the <emph>Face Squid</emph> condition consisted of an increasing trend across sessions. The results of Hayes' concurrent operant reinforcer assessment also indicated that the social interaction identified as highest preferred across both the video- and picture-presentation preference assessments functioned as a reinforcer.</p> <p>During the reinforcer assessment, Topher stacked a mean of 28.8 (range 20–36) LEGO<sups>®</sups> blocks per session for the social interaction identified as highest preferred in the video-presentation preference assessment, <emph>Fish Kisses</emph>. On the other hand, he stacked a mean of eight (range 0–16) LEGO<sups>®</sups> blocks per session for the social interaction identified as highest preferred in the picture-presentation preference assessment, <emph>Nice Work</emph>. Finally, he stacked a mean of 10.4 (range 0–16) LEGO<sups>®</sups> blocks per session in the control condition. Differentiation between <emph>Fish Kisses</emph> (video highest preferred) and <emph>Nice Work</emph> (picture highest preferred) as well as the control condition occurred immediately and maintained across all sessions. In fact, the <emph>Fish Kisses</emph> data reflect an increasing trend across sessions while the <emph>Nice Work</emph> reflect a decreasing trend, with the final two sessions indicating zero LEGO<sups>®</sups> block stacking. The results of Topher's concurrent operant reinforcer assessment indicate that the social interaction identified as highest preferred from the results of the video-presentation preference assessment functioned as a reinforcer. On the other hand, the social interaction identified as highest preferred from the results of the picture-presentation preference assessment did not function as a reinforcer in the concurrent operant reinforcer assessment (Fig. 2).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Reinforcer assessment results</p> <p>The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which each preference assessment format resulted in the identification of an effective social reinforcer. The results of the video- and picture-presentation preference assessments corresponded for two of the three participants. In addition, the highest preferred interaction for those two participants increased the target behavior during the reinforcer assessment. For the third participant, the highest preferred social interaction differed between the presentation formats. The subsequent reinforcer assessment indicated that the social interaction identified via the video-presentation preference assessment was a more effective reinforcer than the social interaction identified via the picture-presentation preference assessment for this participant.</p> <hd id="AN0157411775-25">General Discussion</hd> <p>The results of Study 1 indicate that for some participants, a video- and picture-presentation paired-stimulus preference assessment may result in differentiated responding. While it remains unclear as to why differentiated responding did not occur for two of the five participants, future research to determine variables that may contribute to successful identification of preferred social interactions is warranted. The results of Study 2 verified the corresponding results of the video- and picture-presentation preference assessments for two of the three participants. For the third participant, the social interaction identified as highest preferred in the video-presentation assessment served as a relatively more effective reinforcer than the social interaction identified as highest preferred in the picture-presentation assessment. This suggests, that in some cases, the video-presentation preference assessment is more beneficial than the picture-presentation format.</p> <p>A concurrent operant reinforcer assessment evaluates relative reinforcer strength, not absolute reinforcer effect. In fact, Roscoe et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref35">17</reflink>]) found that among participants who allocated responding to tasks associated with a highly preferred stimulus in a concurrent operant assessment, most participants maintained response rates similar to those associated with the highly preferred stimulus in the concurrent operant assessment in a single-schedule condition in which only the low-preferred stimulus was available. Therefore, the current reinforcer assessment data only reflect relative reinforcer effects rather than absolute reinforcer effects. In other words, we do not know if <emph>Nice Work</emph>, the social interaction identified as Topher's highest preferred in the picture preference assessment, but as a relatively weak reinforcer in the concurrent operant assessment, may function as a reinforcer in a single-schedule condition.</p> <p>It is noteworthy that across all participants in Study 2, responding occurred at low, but decreasing, rates across control LEGO<sups>®</sups> blocks. We specifically selected LEGO<sups>®</sups> stacking because participants were capable of completing it independently, but it did not appear to be a preferred task as participants rarely completed LEGO<sups>®</sups> stacking without prompting or social reinforcement. However, it is possible that stacking LEGO<sups>®</sups> blocks was mildly automatically reinforcing for some participants, especially Tony, who continued to stack the LEGO<sups>®</sups> blocks associated with no interaction (i.e., control) at low levels. That is, he may have continued to stack those LEGO<sups>®</sups> blocks because the LEGO<sups>®</sups> stacking response served as its own reinforcer.</p> <p>Previous research indicates that highly preferred social interactions increase appropriate behavior (Clay et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref36">3</reflink>]; Davis et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref37">5</reflink>]; Nuernberger et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref38">13</reflink>]). It is often preferable to use social reinforcers rather than tangible reinforcers in cases in which both increase appropriate behavior (Clay et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref39">3</reflink>]; Parsonson et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref40">16</reflink>]). Social reinforcers more closely match typical reinforcement contingencies for simple, discrete behaviors in classroom and applied settings (Clay et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref41">3</reflink>]; Parsonson et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref42">16</reflink>]). Along with the previous literature, this study indicates that contingent access to highly preferred social interactions can increase appropriate behavior. This body of literature suggests the importance of using highly preferred social interactions in intervention plans.</p> <p>The results of this study indicate that some social interactions are more effective in increasing appropriate behavior than others, supporting findings from the previous literature (Clay et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref43">3</reflink>]; Davis et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref44">5</reflink>]; Nuernberger et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref45">13</reflink>]). For children who engage in appropriate behavior to access social interactions, it is likely that only certain forms of social reinforcement are effective in increasing appropriate behavior. Without guidance, practitioners may use the same form of social interaction to increase children's behavior across multiple children (e.g., "good job"). However, one form of social interaction (e.g., "good job") may function as a strong reinforcer for some children, a weak reinforcer for others, and may not be a reinforcer at all for others. These findings, along with previous research (e.g., Nuernberger et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref46">13</reflink>]), suggest that in certain cases social interactions have relative reinforcer effects, which appears to be correlated with preference for those social interactions. For this reason, practitioners should conduct a preference assessment of social interactions if the intervention plan includes the contingent use of social interactions to increase appropriate behavior.</p> <p>Live-, picture-, and video-presentation preference assessment of social interactions has been evaluated in the extant literature (Clay et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref47">3</reflink>]; Davis et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref48">5</reflink>]; Nuernberger et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref49">13</reflink>]). When selecting the best preference assessment format, practitioners should also consider ease of implementation. In this study, the production of the videos and pictures was nearly identical. The videos were captured in fewer than 5 min with each participant, and the photographs were selected from still frames from those videos. As a result, there was no evident difference in the ease of preparing materials for either assessment. However, the representation of social interactions presented unique challenges within the picture-presentation. Specifically, representation of multiple praise statements was challenging, as photographs of various praise statements have no visual distinction. As a result, a text box was inserted on the picture with the corresponding text statement. For children unable to read text, this approach would not have addressed this challenge; however, the addition of any other visual discriminative stimuli would have been arbitrary. Therefore, in some cases, video-presentation may be a logical selection based on what social interactions can be accurately represented in a photograph.</p> <p>The results of this study indicate that the video-presentation format resulted in the identification of an effective social reinforcer for more participants than the picture-presentation. However, due to the small sample size, it is unclear how often the picture-presentation format does not result in the identification of an effective social reinforcer. Moreover, when considered with the result of previous research validating the effectiveness of both the video- and picture-presentation formats (e.g., Davis et al. [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref50">5</reflink>]; Kelly et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref51">11</reflink>]; Nuernberger et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref52">13</reflink>]; Wolfe et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref53">20</reflink>]), further research comparing the effectiveness of various presentation formats is still warranted.</p> <hd id="AN0157411775-26">Limitations</hd> <p>The results of the present study should be interpreted in light of the relevant limitations in the methodology. First, the behavior targeted in the reinforcer assessment was stacking LEGO<sups>®</sups> blocks. The experimenters chose this behavior because it was a mastered skill for all participants. However, it is unclear if we would have obtained the same results with a more difficult or complex task. Future research should evaluate the correspondence of each presentation format and reinforcer assessments with more difficult or complex behaviors. Second, the reinforcer assessment utilized vocal rule statements and prompted responses to expose participants to the contingencies associated with stacking each set of LEGO<sups>®</sups> blocks. During the preference assessment, social interactions were only associated with pictures or videos, not vocal descriptions. It is possible that the vocal rule statement was ineffective; however, the participants were also exposed to the contingencies of each condition via prompted trials. Finally, the study included only five participants. With different response patterns among only three of the five participants, it is not possible to draw definitive conclusions regarding the efficacy of video- and picture-presentation preference assessments to identify preference for social interactions.</p> <hd id="AN0157411775-27">Directions for Future Research</hd> <p>Based on the present findings, further research on preference assessments for social interactions is needed. Future research should compare video-presentation and picture-presentation to live-presentation preference assessments for social interactions. In addition, there is a need for more comprehensive evaluation of the most accurate and feasible presentation format across more participants. This evaluation should include an analysis of individual participant characteristics that indicate which presentation format is more likely to correspond with the identification of effective reinforcers for that participant. One potential characteristic for further analysis is prerequisite matching skills. In this study, participants demonstrated the ability to match objects to pictures and videos; however, we did not evaluate the symmetric relation (i.e., picture and videos to objects) nor did we evaluate the ability to match pictures to videos and vice versa. Perhaps these prerequisite skills may be necessary to obtain valid results from picture- or video-presentation preference assessments.</p> <hd id="AN0157411775-28">Conclusions</hd> <p>The results of this study along with the extant literature indicate that both picture- and video-presentation preference assessments are likely to result in the identification of a social interaction that can serve as a reinforcer. It may be the case that for some individuals, the video-presentation format is more likely to result in the identification of an effective reinforcer; however, the specific factors that indicate which presentation format is likely to be successful remain unknown. Practitioners should conduct preference assessments of social interactions prior to implementing an intervention in which social interactions are used to increase appropriate behavior. However, if results of a preference assessment of social interactions are inconclusive, practitioners should consider a second presentation format with preliminary evidence that some individuals respond differently to various presentation formats.</p> <hd id="AN0157411775-29">Compliance with Ethical Standards</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0157411775-30">Ethical Approval</hd> <p>All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.</p> <hd id="AN0157411775-31">Informed Consent</hd> <p>Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.</p> <hd id="AN0157411775-32">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0157411775-33"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref20" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Brodhead MT, Abston GW, Mates M, Abel EA. Further refinement of video-based brief multiple-stimulus without replacement preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2017; 50: 170-175. 10.1002/jaba.358. 27766655</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref18" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Clark DR, Donaldson JM, Kahng S. Are video-based preference assessments without access to selected stimuli effective. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2015; 48: 1-6. 10.1002/jaba.246</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Clay CJ, Samaha AL, Bloom SE, Bogoev BK, Boyle MA. Assessing preference for social interactions. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 2013; 34: 362-371. 10.1016/j.ridd.2012.07.028. 23009945</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref22" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Clay CJ, Samaha AL, Bogoev BK. Assessing preference for and reinforcing efficacy of components of social interaction in individuals with autism spectrum disorder. Learning and Motivation. 2018; 62: 4-14. 10.1016/j.lmot.2017.03.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref25" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Davis TN, Hodges A, Weston R, Hogan E, Padilla-Mainor K. Correspondence between preference assessment outcomes and stimulus reinforcer value for social interactions. Journal of Behavioral Education. 2017; 26: 238-249. 10.1007/s10864-017-9271-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref12" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> DeLeon IG, Iwata BA. Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1996; 29: 519-533. 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-519. 8995834. 1284008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref13" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Fisher W, Piazza CC, Bowman LG, Hagopian LP, Owens JC, Slevin I. A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe to profound disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1992; 25: 491-498. 10.1901/jaba.1992.25-491. 1634435. 1279726</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref17" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Hagopian LP, Long ES, Rush KS. Preference assessment procedures for individuals with developmental disabilities. Behavior Modification. 2004; 28: 668-677. 10.1177/0145445503259836. 15296524</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref4" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Kang S, O'Reilly M, Lancioni G, Falcomata TS, Sigafoos J, Xu Z. Comparison of the predictive validity and consistency among preference assessment procedures: A review of the literature. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 2013; 34: 1125-1133. 10.1016/j.ridd.2012.12.021. 23357675</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kang S, O'Reilly M, Rojeski L, Blenden K, Xu Z, Davis T, Sigafoos J, Lancioni G. Effects of tangible and social reinforcers on skill acquisition, stereotyped behavior, and task engagement in three children with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 2013; 34: 739-744. 10.1016/j.ridd.2012.10.007. 23220050</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelly MA, Roscoe EM, Hanley GP, Schlichenmeyer K. Evaluation of assessment methods for identifying social reinforcers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2014; 47: 113-135. 10.1002/jaba.107. 24604393</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mechling LC, Moser SV. Video preference assessment of students with autism for watching self, adults, or peers. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities. 2010; 25; 2: 76-84. 10.1177/1088357610364392</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nuernberger JE, Smith CA, Czapar KN, Klatt KP. Assessing preference for social interaction in children diagnosed with autism. Behavioral Interventions. 2012; 27: 33-44. 10.1002/bin.1336</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> O'Reilly M, Lang R, Davis T, Rispoli M, Machalicek W, Sigafoos J, Lancioni G, Didden R. A systematic examination of different parameters of presession exposure to tangible stimuli that maintain problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2009; 42: 773-783. 10.1901/jaba.2009.42-773. 22102760. 3220272</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pace GM, Ivancic MT, Edwards GL, Iwata BA, Page TJ. Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1985; 18: 249-255. 10.1901/jaba/1985.18-249. 4044458. 1308015</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parsonson BS, Baer AM, Baer DM. The application of generalized correct social contingencies: An evaluation of a training program. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1974; 7: 427-437. 10.1901/jaba.1974.7-427. 4465378. 1311988</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roscoe EM, Iwata BA, Kahng S. Relative versus absolute reinforcement effects: Implications for preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1999; 32: 479-493. 10.1901/jaba.1999.32-479. 10641302. 1284210</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smaby K, MacDonald RPF, Ahearn WH, Dube WV. Assessment protocol for identifying preferred social consequences. Behavioral Interventions. 2007; 22: 311-318. 10.1002/bin.242</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weeden M, Poling A. Identifying reinforcers in skill acquisition studies involving participants with autism: Procedures reported from 2005 to 2009. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders. 2011; 5: 288-291. 10.1016/j.rasd.2010.05.004</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolfe K, Kunnavatana SS, Shoemaker AM. An investigation of a video-based preference assessment of social interactions. Behavior Modification. 2017; 42: 729-746. 10.1177/014544551773. 28911243</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Tonya Davis; Regan Weston; Abby Hodges and Stephanie Gerow</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref35"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1338395
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Comparison of Picture- and Video-Presentation Preference Assessments for Social Interactions
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Davis%2C+Tonya%22">Davis, Tonya</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9349-0736">0000-0002-9349-0736</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Weston%2C+Regan%22">Weston, Regan</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hodges%2C+Abby%22">Hodges, Abby</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Gerow%2C+Stephanie%22">Gerow, Stephanie</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Behavioral+Education%22"><i>Journal of Behavioral Education</i></searchLink>. Jun 2022 31(2):367-387.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 21
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Students+with+Disabilities%22">Students with Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Positive+Reinforcement%22">Positive Reinforcement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interaction%22">Interaction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interpersonal+Relationship%22">Interpersonal Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Video+Technology%22">Video Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pictorial+Stimuli%22">Pictorial Stimuli</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preferences%22">Preferences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Males%22">Males</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Developmental+Disabilities%22">Developmental Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Operant+Conditioning%22">Operant Conditioning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation+Methods%22">Evaluation Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Reinforcement%22">Social Reinforcement</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10864-020-09402-5
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1053-0819
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Effective training programs for individuals with disabilities often involve the use of positive reinforcement. Social interactions have many benefits over other forms of reinforcement, but more research is needed to determine how to identify social interactions that serve as reinforcers. In the first experiment, we evaluated the use of two procedures to assess preference for social interactions: a video-presentation and a picture-presentation paired-choice preference assessment among five boys diagnosed with a developmental disability. In the second experiment, we conducted concurrent operant reinforcer assessments to validate the results of the preference assessments among three of the five participants in which at least one assessment indicated differentiated preferences. The video-presentation and picture-presentation preference assessments resulted in the identification of the same high-preferred social interactions for two of the three participants, and subsequent reinforcer assessments indicated these social interactions served as reinforcers. The results of the video- and picture-presentation preference assessments differed for the final participant. The results of a concurrent operant reinforcer assessment indicated the social interaction identified as highest preferred in the video-presentation assessment served as a relatively more effective reinforcer. Results of this study indicate that video- and picture-presentation preference assessment results in differentiate responding for some participants, but not others; however, reasons for these results remain unknown. Moreover, a video-presentation preference assessments may be more effective in identifying social reinforcers, but evidence should be considered; preliminary and future research is warranted.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2022
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1338395
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1338395
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10864-020-09402-5
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 21
        StartPage: 367
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Students with Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Positive Reinforcement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interaction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interpersonal Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Video Technology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pictorial Stimuli
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preferences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Males
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Developmental Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Operant Conditioning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evaluation Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Reinforcement
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Comparison of Picture- and Video-Presentation Preference Assessments for Social Interactions
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Davis, Tonya
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Weston, Regan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hodges, Abby
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Gerow, Stephanie
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 06
              Type: published
              Y: 2022
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1053-0819
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 31
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Behavioral Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1