Reinforcer Preference Assessment:
A useful tool for the School Psychologist
Samuel Thompson, M.Ed., LSSP
Texas Tech University School Psychology Specialization
SELCO SSA
Brook Roberts, M.A., LSSP
SELCO SSA
INTRODUCTION
Reinforcer: Any stimuli that, when presented,
increases the future frequency of the behavior that
immediately precedes it.

In schools, positive reinforcement is considered
the cornerstone of effective behavior change and
management.

Positive reinforcement is impossible if the stimulus
selected to serve as a reinforcer is not actually
reinforcing to the student.

INTRODUCTION
School Psychologists are frequent
behavioral consultants


Last line of defense
When bringing in outside consultants, time
is money

Special Education directors will be happy
with any steps the School Psychologist can
take in order to save time with the consultant

 The first step is typically a reinforcer preference
assessment
INTRODUCTION
What students are we talking about?
 Those requiring substantial behavioral support
 Any student exhibiting aggression or property
destruction
 Students with frequent BIP modifications or related
manifestation determination reviews
 Students who seem to demonstrate no clear preference
INTRODUCTION
Verbal Nomination
 RAISD
 “I know he likes this…”
Free Operant Preference Assessment
 Tangibles and activities
Multiple Stimulus without Replacement
 Edibles and (maybe) tangibles
VERBAL NOMINATION
History
 One of the earliest forms of preference assessment was
to simply ask the student
Application
 Can be used with caregivers, teachers, or child
 When time is limited
 To have a starting point and to also begin to eliminate
items which may not be reinforcing
VERBAL NOMINATION
Strengths/Weaknesses
 Self-report may not accurately identify reinforcers in
some cases when directly observed
• (Northup et al., 1996)
 Caregiver report is frequently ineffective at reliably
identifying reinforcers
• (Windsor , Piche, & Locke, 1994)
 Teacher and caregiver report, when incorporated with
other direct assessment procedures, may more
effectively identify reinforcers than either of the two in
isolation
• (Cote et al., 2007)
VERBAL NOMINATION
Strengths and Weaknesses (cont)
 A reinforcer chosen by the individual receiving it rather
than by someone else may be more effective
• (Fisher et al.,1996; Lerman et al., 1997; Thompson, Fisher, & Contrucci, 1998)
 Self-nomination of preference may not match observed
preferences
 Self-nomination is limited to individuals who possess
sufficient expressive and receptive language skills
 Considerations
Students’ level of functioning
Verbal abilities
Cognitive abilities
Use pictures when needed
VERBAL NOMINATION
Reinforcer Assessment for Individuals with Severe Disabilities
- (RAISD; Fisher et al., 1996)
 Generates a list of potential reinforcers from the visual,
audible, olfactory, edible, social, and tactile domains
 Rank orders the stimuli from most to least preferred based on
predictions of child preference
 When information yielded from these methods does not appear
to change behavior, other methods of reinforcer assessment
may be required.
VERBAL NOMINATION
Other Verbal Nomination Instruments
 School Reinforcement Survey Schedule
• (Holmes, Cautela, Simpson, Motes, & Gold, 1998)
 Forced Choice Reinforcement Survey
• (Cartwright & Cartwright, 1970)
• Presentation of limited choices will prevent unrealistic selections
(such as iPhones and trips to Cancun)
RAISD/Forced Choice Reinforcement Survey
FREE OPERANT PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT
History
 Developed a procedure in which participants had
continuous access to an array of stimuli for 5 minutes.
• (Roane et al.,1998)
 Participants were free to interact with the stimulus(i) of
their choosing at any time throughout the assessment,
and no stimuli were withdrawn from the participants
FREE OPERANT PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT
Application
 Provide non-contingent access to an array of stimuli that




may or may not function as reinforcers
Operationally define “interaction”
Record total duration of interaction with each object or
percentage of intervals child interacted with object
Method to assess tangible and activity reinforcers
“Today, you get to play with these toys. When I say “go”,
play with the toys you would like to play with.”
FREE OPERANT PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT
Strengths/Weaknesses
 Length of assessment is shorter than other methods
 Displayed fewer problem behaviors during assessment
 May not get a hierarchy/ranking of preferred items
Data Collection: % of intervals
FREE OPERANT PREFERENCE ASSESSMENT
Free Operant Assessment Data Sheet
Results from journal article by Sautter, LeBlanc, & Gillett, 2008:
MSWO
Multiple Stimulus Without Replacement

-(DeLeon & Iwata,1996)
Typically referred to as an MSWO

Uses verbal nomination results

Developed in contrast to a forced choice preference
assessment or a multiple stimulus with replacement

-Creates
a hierarchy, discrete rankings
Hierarchy useful for more complicated interventions
that utilize delayed reinforcement schedules

MSWO
Application





Student seemingly “bounces around” from one
reinforcer to another
Unpredictable preference
Any time edibles are approved for programming
3-5 trials are needed
MSWO
Steps in application:

1. Obtain reinforcers
2. Create standardized quantities
3. Randomize data sheet
4. Allow for tact/exposure
5. “Okay, pick one…”
MSWO
Data sheet procedures:



Randomize each stimuli
One presenter/administrator, one data collector
Pitfalls:



Student grabs for more than one – Block and reset the
trial
Saving the best for last
CONCLUSION
General recommendations:
 Ensure standardization
 Be prepared for problem behavior
Threats to validity
 Mixing Edibles and Tangibles/Activities
• (DeLeon et al., 1997)
Data collection/presentation
 Visually inspect your data
 Stop when data is stable
REFERENCES
Cartwright, C. A., & Cartwright, G. P. (1970). Determining the motivational systems of individual children. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 2(3), 143-149.
Cautela, J., Cautela, J., & Esonis, S. (1983). Forms for behavior analysis with children. Champaign, IL: Research Press.
Cote, C.A., Thompson, R.H., Hanley, G.P., & McKerchar, P.M. (2007). Teacher report and direct assessment of preferences for
identifying reinforcers for young children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 40, 157-166.
DeLeon, I.G., & Iwata, B.A. (1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 519-532.
DeLeon, I.G., Iwata, B.A., Goh, H.L., & Worsdell, A.S. (1997). Emergence of reinforcer preference as a function of schedule
requirements and stimulus similarity. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 439-449
Fisher, W.W., Piazza, C.C., Bowman, L.G., & Amari, A. (1996). Integrating caregiver report with a systematic choice assessment.
American Journal on Mental Retardation, 101, 15-25.
Fisher, W., Thompson, R., Piazza, C., Crosland, K., & Gotjen, D. (1997). On the relative reinforcing effects of choice and differential
consequences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 423-438.
Lerman, D., Iwata, B., Rainville, B., Adelinis, J., Crosland, K., & Kogan, J. (1997). Effects of reinforcement choice on task responding in
individuals with developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 411-422.
Northup, J., George, T., Jones, K., Broussard, C., & Vollmer, T.R. (1996). A comparison of reinforcer assessment methods: The
utility of verbal and pictorial choice procedures. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 201-212.
Roane, H.S., Vollmer, T.R., Ringdahl, J.E., & Marcus, B.A. (1998). Evaluation of a brief stimulus preference assessment. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 605-620.
Sautter, R. A., LeBlanc, L. A., & Gillett, J. N. (2008). Using free operant preference assessments to select toys for free play between
children with autism and siblings. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 2(1), 17-27.
Thompson, R., Fisher, W., & Contrucci, S. (1998). Evaluating the reinforcing effects of choice in comparison to
reinforcement rate. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 19, 181-187.
Windsor, J., Piche, L.M., & Locke, P.A. (1994). Preference testing: A comparison of two presentation methods. Research in
Developmental Disabilities, 15, 439-455.
AND