ERIC EJ725246: Assessing Object-to-Picture and Picture-to-Object Matching as Prerequisite Skills for Pictorial Preference Assessments

0.08 MB·English

by  ERIC

JOURNALOFAPPLIEDBEHAVIORANALYSIS 2005, 38, 543–547 NUMBER4 (WINTER2005)
ASSESSING OBJECT-TO-PICTURE AND PICTURE-TO-OBJECT
MATCHING AS PREREQUISITE SKILLS FOR
PICTORIAL PREFERENCE ASSESSMENTS
THERESA M. CLEVENGER
NEWENGLANDCENTERFORCHILDREN
AND
RICHARD B. GRAFF
NEWENGLANDCENTERFORCHILDRENAND
NORTHEASTERNUNIVERSITY
Tangible and pictorial paired-stimulus (PPS) preference assessments were compared for 6
individuals with developmental disabilities. During tangible and PPS assessments, two edible
items or photographs were presented on each trial, respectively, and approach responses were
recorded. Both assessments yielded similar preference hierarchies for 3 participants who could
matchpicturesandobjectsbutdifferenthierarchiesfor3participantswhocouldnot.Reinforcer
assessments verified that items identified as high preference on PPS assessments functioned as
reinforcers only forparticipants withmatchingskills.
DESCRIPTORS: pictorial preference assessment, preference assessment, reinforcer assess-
ment
_______________________________________________________________________________
Identifying the necessary prerequisite skills evaluated in thepreference assessmentswith the
for pictorial paired-stimulus (PPS) preference actual objects with 100% accuracy. Preference
assessments would help clinicians to determine assessment procedures were identical across
if these procedures would be effective for the tangible and PPS assessments with the excep-
individualswithwhomtheywork.Inonerecent tion of the stimulus type (tangible items vs.
study, prior to administering tangible, verbal, pictures). The ability to match pictures to
and PPS assessments, a discrimination skills objects was predictive of correspondence be-
assessment was conducted (Conyers et al., tween tangible and PPS assessments; however,
2002); performance on the discrimination tests individuals who could not match pictures to
predicted preference outcomes with each assess- objects were not included in this evaluation.
ment type. More recently, Graff and Gibson Therefore, the purpose of this study was to
(2003) compared hierarchies of preferred determine the level of correspondence between
stimuli generated by tangible (Fisher et al., tangible and PPS assessments with individuals
1992) and PPS assessments with 4 participants who could and could not match pictures and
who could match pictures of the items to be objects.
Portionsofthispaperwerepresentedatthe29thannual
convention of the Association for Behavior Analysis, San
METHOD
Francisco. Appreciation is extended to Mike McSweeney
andRickShawfortheirassistancewithdatacollection.We Participants and Setting
arealsogratefultoRichardFoxxandseveralreviewersfor
All participants attended a residential school.
their helpful comments on an earlier version of this
manuscript. Tommy (age 12, Fragile X syndrome and
ReprintsmaybeobtainedfromTheresaM.Clevenger, developmental delay), Matt (age 13, autism),
New England Center for Children, 33 Turnpike Road,
and Jeffrey (age 9, pervasive developmental
Southborough, Massachusetts 01772.
doi:10.1901/jaba.2005.161-04 disorder) communicated using pictures, limited
543
544 THERESA M. CLEVENGER and RICHARD B. GRAFF
sign language, and limited vocal speech. Sam the larger number and multiplying by 100%;
(age13),Mark(age13),andKatie(age16)had agreement was 100%.
beendiagnosed withautismandcommunicated
with limited sign language. Stimulus preference Preference Assessments
assessments(10 minlong)andreinforcerassess-
FoursessionsincludingbothtangibleandPPS
ments (5 min long) were conducted at the
assessmentswereconductedwitheightitemsper
schoolor residence, two to fivetimes perday, 1
child.Toallowforpossibleshiftsinpreferenceto
to 5 days per week. affect each assessment similarly, each session
Picture-to-object(P-O)and object-to-picture consisted of a block of 14 tangible trials and
(O-P) matching tests were conducted prior to ablockof14PPStrials;theorderoftrialsvaried
and following the study, using the same objects across sessions. Across allsessions, each stimulus
and pictures used in the preference assessments. was paired with every other stimulus twice (a
Pre- and posttests consisted of eight trials of total of 56 trials for each assessment).
P-OmatchingandeighttrialsofO-Pmatching, Tangible assessment. Tangible assessments
using a discrete-trial format with a three- were based on the paired-stimulus procedure
stimulus comparison array; samples and com- described by Fisher et al. (1992). Eight pre-
parisons varied across trials. Mean accuracy on viously consumed edible items were used with
both tests was 94% for the matching group eachparticipant.Oneachtrial,twostimuliwere
(Tommy, Matt, and Jeffrey) and 29% for the placed approximately0.5 m apartand 0.3 m in
nonmatching group (Sam, Katie, and Mark). front of the individual. The positions of the
stimuli were counterbalanced across trials.
Response Measurement and Interobserver Following each approach response, participants
Agreement were allowed to consume the selected item.
For tangible and PPS assessments, approach Pictorial assessment. PPS assessments used
responses (picking up an edible item or photographs of the same items used in the
touching a photograph) were recorded with tangible assessment. The procedure for the PPS
paper and pencil. Preference hierarchies were assessments was similar to the procedure for
then developed based on the mean percentage tangible assessments, except that two photo-
of trials in which each stimulus was approached graphswerepresentedtotheparticipantoneach
across sessions. Two observers independently trial(tangibleitemswerenotvisible).Following
recorded data in 50% of sessions for all a touch to a photograph, the experimenter
participants across both assessments. An agree- presented the corresponding tangible item.
ment was defined as observers recording the
same stimulus approached on a trial. Interob- Reinforcer Assessments
server agreement was calculated by dividing the Reinforcer assessment tasks included silver-
number of agreements by the number of ware sorting (Tommy and Matt), index card
agreements plus disagreements and multiplying stamping (Jeffrey), placing toys in a container
by 100%; mean agreement was 98% (range, (Sam and Katie), and stringing beads (Mark).
93% to 100%). Following each reinforcer Two sets of tasks were used in each session,
assessment, the number of completed products identical except for their colors. Tasks were
was counted. A second observer recorded placed on a table 1 m apart, and task position
permanent-product data during a mean of varied across sessions. Baseline and reinforce-
94% of sessions across participants (range, ment (Sr+) conditions were presented using an
80% to 100%). Interobserver agreement was ABAB design for 5 of 6 participants. Matt
calculated by dividing the smaller number by demonstratedsomecolorpreferencesduringthe
PICTORIAL PREFERENCE ASSESSMENTS 545
Figure1. Stimulus-preferencehierarchiesforbothtangibleandpictorialpreferenceassessmentsforparticipantswith
object-pictureandpicture-objectmatchingskills(Tommy,Matt,andJeffrey,leftpanels)andwithoutobject-pictureand
picture-object matching skills (Sam, Katie, and, Mark, right panels). Solid bars depict the results of the tangible
assessment; striped bars depict the results of the pictorial assessment. Spearman rank order correlation coefficients are
noted. Stimulidenoted withan asterisk wereused inreinforcer assessments.
546 THERESA M. CLEVENGER and RICHARD B. GRAFF
Figure 2. Response rates across sessions for participants without object-picture and picture-object matching skills
(Sam,Katie,andMark).
PICTORIAL PREFERENCE ASSESSMENTS 547
first Sr+ phase, so an alternating treatments for participants without matching skills. In
phase was substituted for the second Sr+ phase. addition, there was more responding on the
Prior to each session, the experimenter physi- taskassociated withthemost preferredstimulus
cally prompted participants to engage in each derived from the tangible assessment compared
task and immediately delivered the edible item to responding on the task associated with the
associated with that task (no food was delivered most preferred stimulus derived from the PPS
prior to baseline sessions). Then, the experi- assessment (see Figure 2).
menter told the participant once to complete One possible explanation for these results is
the task and stated which edible item was that O-P and P-O matching skills may be
availableforresponding(itemswereplacednear prerequisites for using PPS assessments. It is
each task). In the first session, 3 of 6 partici- also possible that our results could be related to
pants responded consistently on a fixed-ratio the history of manding with pictures present in
(FR)1schedule,so thereinforcement schedules the matching group and absent in the non-
for these participants were gradually thinned matching group. Future research should exam-
within that session. The schedules in place at inewhetherteachingmatchingskillsorteaching
the end of the first session were used in subse- generalized manding to individuals without
quent sessions (range, FR 1 to variable-ratio 5). matching skills would alter the effectiveness of
APhase:Baseline.Duringbaseline,taskswere PPS assessments for these individuals.
placed in front of the participant. The exper- Having only 3 participants in each condition
imenter stated at the start of the session that it limits the generality of this study as well as the
wastimetocompletethetaskandthatnoedible internal validity of the group comparison. In
itemswereavailableforcompletingthetask.No addition, this study did not assess the use of
stimuli were presented for responding. picturesrepresentingcommunity-basedorsocial
BPhase:Reinforcement(Sr+).Duringthefirst activities;edibleitemswereusedfortheireaseof
Sr+ phase, the highest ranked item on each deliveryandtoallowustoevaluatemorequickly
assessment was randomly assigned to a colored theassociationbetweenmatchingrepertoiresand
task. When both assessments yielded the same PPS outcomes. Future research should evaluate
top-ranked item, the first and second ranked therelevanceofdifferentprerequisiterepertoires
items were included. In the second Sr+ phase, with the types of protracted events that require
the edible items associated with each task were pictorial preference assessments.
reversed.
REFERENCES
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Conyers,C.,Doole,A.,Vause,T.,Harapiak,S.,Yu,D.C.
T., & Martin, G. L. (2002). Predicting the relative
Figure 1 depicts the preference hierarchies
efficacy of three presentation methods for assessing
generated by the tangible and PPS assessments. preferencesofpersonswithdevelopmentaldisabilities.
The hierarchies generated for participants with Journal ofAppliedBehavior Analysis, 35,49–58.
Fisher, W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., Hagopian, L.
matchingskillsweresimilarforbothassessments
P., Owens, J. C., & Slevin, I. (1992). A comparison
(see Figure 1 for correlation coefficients). of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for
Therefore, it was not surprising that the personswithsevereandprofounddisabilities.Journal
of AppliedBehaviorAnalysis,25,491–498.
reinforcer assessments for participants with
Graff,R.B.,&Gibson,L.(2003).Usingpicturestoassess
matching skills indicated that items identified
reinforcersinindividualswithdevelopmentaldisabil-
as highly preferred on both tangible and PPS ities. Behavior Modification,27,470–483.
assessments functioned as reinforcers (data avail-
Received November 22,2004
able from the authors). By contrast, the out-
Final acceptanceJuly 14,2005
comes of the two assessments were dissimilar Action Editor,Gregory Hanley