Running head: PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT REPLACEMENT 1

Preference Assessment Without Replacement

Debbie Roth

Franciscan University of Steubenville

EDU 348
PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT REPLACEMENT 2

Preference Assessment Without Replacement

Reinforcement is a common behavior management technique in the classroom. However,

many teachers choose the wrong reinforcers and in doing so make reinforcement ineffective

(Cannella-Malone, Sabielny, Jimenez, & Miller, 2013). A preference assessment is an

assessment that measures a student’s preference of reinforcers (King & Kostewicz, 2014).

Preference assessments provide teachers with a systematic way to identify effective reinforcers

in order to better manage student behavior (King & Kostewicz, 2014). Cannella-Malone et al.

(2013) identify four types of choice-based preference assessments: eye gaze assessment, single

stimulus assessment, paired stimulus assessment, and multiple stimulus without replacement

assessment. The different types of preference assessments are designed to meet the different

needs of students with disabilities (Cannella-Malone et al., 2013). During a preference

assessment, the student is asked to pick one of the possible reinforcers and the administrator of

the assessment records the data (Cannella-Malone et al., 2013). This information is used to

identify reinforcers for a child in order for teachers to use those reinforcers within the classroom

behavior management system to promote positive target behaviors (Cannella-Malone et al.,

2013).

This paper will focus on multiple stimulus without replacement (MSWO). As with any

choice-based preference assessment, the assessor must first identify possible reinforcers through

techniques such as observation, speaking to the child, and consulting parents and teachers

(Cannella-Malone et al., 2013). Then, the assessor lines up the possible reinforcers and asks the

child to pick one (Cannella-Malone et al., 2013). Once the child picks, the assessor records the

choice, provides the child a predetermined duration of access to the reinforcer, and then removes
PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT REPLACEMENT 3

the chosen reinforcer (Cannella-Malone et al., 2013). The process is repeated with the remaining

reinforcers until all reinforcers have been selected (Cannella-Malone et al., 2013). Multiple trials

are conducted and a preference hierarchy is determined from the data collected (King &

Kostewicz, 2014).

Participant

The participant for this MSWO preference assessment was a 5 year old African American

boy from the Midwest who will be referred to as Tyler. The primary caregivers for Tyler are his

mother and grandmother. These are the adults who are most involved in Tyler’s life and have the

greatest impact on him outside of school. His family is also a part of a church community and the

pastor acts as a role model for Tyler as well.

Tyler has high academic performance in relation to his peers. He is in Kindergarten and

can identify almost all of his letters, both uppercase and lowercase. He can legibly write many of

these letters. He also has a strong grasp of numbers and counting. As with his letters, he can

recognize and write many numbers. Shapes and patterns can both be identified by Tyler as well.

Tyler has strong oral language skills. He speaks clearly and conveys meaning effectively. His

receptive language is also strong, as demonstrated by his ability to respond appropriately to peers

and adults in conversation and when given directions.

Tyler’s behavior is often disruptive to the class. Often, he is out of his seat when students

are expected to be sitting. He frequently plays with toys and teaching tools during times when

this is not permissible. Occasionally, Tyler hides under desks, kicks his feet, swings his arms,

and yells. He has been removed from the classroom multiple times because of his behavior.

While this behavior distracts his classmates and pulls the teacher away from instruction to

address problem behavior, it also limits Tyler’s own ability to learn, especially when it causes
PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT REPLACEMENT 4

him to be removed from the classroom for a length of time during the day. In terms of functional

behavior, Tyler has no difficulties. He can take off and put on his coat independently, go to the

restroom on his own, feed himself, etc.

Setting

The preference assessment was administered in the teacher’s lounge at Tyler’s school. It

should be noted that Tyler had never been to the teacher’s lounge before this assessment. In the

teacher’s lounge, there was a kitchenette with some counters, a sink, a microwave, and a

refrigerator. There was a large table in the middle of the room that had boxes, papers, and shirts

covering it and chairs around it. There was also a table on the wall opposite the kitchenette with

three chairs around it and nothing on top. This smaller table was where Tyler and the assessor

sat. Tyler sat across from the assessor. The assessment was given at approximately 10 am. Only

Tyler and the assessor were in the room the entire time, but throughout the assessment two girls

from a nearby high school came in and out and worked with the supplies on the large table.

Materials

The items used were identified as possible reinforcers based on a brief interview with

Tyler’s classroom teacher. Five items were chosen: a toy car based on the movie Cars, a Teenage

Mutant Ninja Turtle toy, a blue block, a small plastic bear (green), and a salmon-colored stuffed

lizard. During the assessment, the items were either on the table or stored out of sight of Tyler on

the third chair.

Procedures

To begin the preference assessment, I lined up the five items in random order while they

were blocked from Tyler’s sight with a folder. Removing the folder, I asked Tyler to “Pick one”.

He proceeded to choose an item. I allowed him to play with the toy for about a minute while I
PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT REPLACEMENT 5

recorded his choice. Then I put the folder in front of the remaining four items and moved each

item one place to the right, with the furthest item to the right being placed all the way to the left,

to eliminate any potential side bias. I instructed Tyler to give the toy he was playing with back to

me and placed the toy out of Tyler’s range of sight on the third chair at the table. Next, the folder

was moved so that Tyler could see the remaining four toys and I once again asked him to “Pick

one”. This process was repeated until all items had been chosen. Six sessions were conducted in

this manner.

When Tyler became distracted, I redirected him back to the assessment by prompting him

a second time to “Pick one”. Occasionally, Tyler asked if he could have two toys at once. To this

I responded, “Only pick one”.

Results

After the assessment was conducted, the data was scored and analyzed to determine the

hierarchy of reinforcers. The following tables show the data collected during the assessment. A

“Y” indicates that the item was selected in that trial. An “N” indicates that the item was not

selected in that trial. A “-” indicates that the item was not present in that trial. Scoring was done

after the assessment was completed. The item that Tyler choose first in each session was given

the score of 1 for that session. The second item chosen in each session was given a 2, the third a

3, and so on. The item that was not selected was given a score of 5.

Session 1
Item Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Score
Car N N N N 5
Ninja Turtle Y - - - 1
Block N N N Y 4
Plastic Bear N N Y - 3
PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT REPLACEMENT 6

Stuffed Lizard N Y - - 2

Session 2
Item Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Score
Car Y - - - 1
Ninja Turtle N N N N 5
Block N N N Y 4
Plastic Bear N N Y - 3
Stuffed Lizard N Y - - 2

Session 3
Item Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Score
Car N Y - - 2
Ninja Turtle N N N N 5
Block N N Y - 3
Plastic Bear Y - - - 1
Stuffed Lizard N N N Y 4

Session 4
Item Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Score
Car Y - - - 1
Ninja Turtle N Y - - 2
Block N N N Y 4
Plastic Bear N N N N 5
Stuffed Lizard N N Y - 3

Session 5
Item Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Score
Car N Y - - 2
Ninja Turtle Y - - - 1
PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT REPLACEMENT 7

Block N N N N 5
Plastic Bear N N N Y 4
Stuffed Lizard N N Y - 3

Session 6
Item Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3 Trial 4 Score
Car N Y - - 2
Ninja Turtle Y - - - 1
Block N N N N 5
Plastic Bear N N N Y 4
Stuffed Lizard N N Y - 3

The scores in the tables above were added for each item to determine the number of trials

in which each item was present. To create a hierarchy of reinforcers, the assessor analyzed how

often each item was chosen. The number of times the item was chosen was divided by the

number of trials in which the item was present. This decimal was then converted into a

percentage by multiplying by 100. The table below presents the items in hierarchical order as

determined by this analysis.

Order in Hierarchy Item Percentage of Trials Chosen

1 Car 46.15%

2 Ninja Turtle 40%

3 Stuffed Lizard 35.29%

4 Plastic Bear 30%

5 Block 24%
PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT REPLACEMENT 8

According to this assessment, Tyler preferred the car the most, followed by the ninja

turtle, the stuffed lizard, the plastic bear, and finally the block.

It should be noted that the high school girls occasionally distracted Tyler during this

assessment and this may have influenced results. It should also be noted that the assessment was

not administered within the classroom and therefore the hierarchy may not be exactly the same in

a classroom setting. Additionally, Tyler occasionally talked to the assessor about his family and

home life during the assessment. This may have influenced the results because he created brief

breaks between choosing items when he began to talk.

Discussion

Identifying meaningful reinforcers is essential when implementing reinforcement for both

prosocial and academic behaviors (Weaver, McKevitt, & Farris, 2017). This preference

assessment suggests that the most effective reinforcers for Tyler are the toy car and the ninja

turtle toy. His teacher could use this information to inform her behavior management to help

Tyler decrease distracting behavior. Tyler could be reinforced for positive target behaviors

through allowance of play with the toy car or the ninja turtle toy after performing target

behaviors for a certain duration, frequency, etc. Any future behavior interventions with Tyler

could use this information to tailor reinforcement to Tyler’s preferences. Often, reinforcers are

chosen arbitrarily and interventions fail because the student is not actually reinforced by the item

used as a reinforcer (Weaver et al., 2017). Behavior interventions that use the information from a

preference assessment are much more effective, which is why it is crucial that any behavior

interventions created for Tyler use the information from this or other preference assessments

(Weaver et al., 2017).

During this assessment, Tyler occasionally chose an item first or second in one session

but last in the next. He also asked on occasion if he could play with more than one toy at a time.

Such variation and questioning suggest that Tyler likes to play with many different toys and may

not be reinforced by the same toy if it is used as reinforcement often. Because of this, the car and

the ninja turtle (the first and the second items in the hierarchy of preferences) could be alternated

when reinforcing behavior. Moving forward, the preference assessment could be given every two

weeks to determine if Tyler’s preferences have changed. This frequency of assessment was

chosen because of Tyler’s apparent desire to play with many different kinds of toys which may

result in frequently changing preferences.

In conducting this assessment, I believe I gave Tyler too much time to play with his

choice after each trial. Usually, he was given about a minute to play with each toy. If I were to

conduct this assessment again, I would only give Tyler about 30 seconds with each toy. The

reason for this is that Tyler seemed to have enough time with one toy that he was happy to move

on, making him less inclined to pick a toy early in a trial if he had picked it later in the previous

trial. It also made the preference assessment take longer to administer. I would also conduct the

assessment in the classroom if possible. Conducting the assessment in the teacher’s lounge was

not ideal because it is not an environment in which Tyler will spend time. He will not be

reinforced for his behavior in the teacher’s lounge but rather in the classroom. The different

environment could influence Tyler’s preferences as well as change the present distractions.

Although there may have been more distractions within the classroom, they would also likely be

the same or similar distractions present when the information from the preference assessment is

being used to change behavior.

Bibliography

King, S. A. & Kostewicz, D. E. (2014). Choice-based stimulus preference assessment for

children with or at risk for emotional disturbance in educational settings. Education and

Treatment of Children, 37(3), 531-558.

Weaver, A. D., McKevitt, B. C., & Farris, A. M. (2017). Using multiple-stimulus without

replacement preference assessments to increase student engagement and performance.

Beyond Behavior, 26(1), 5-10.

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

Conducting preference assessments with students with significant disabilities. Teaching

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