Students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) generally have behavior support plans that are based on a functional behavioral assessment. This article provides educators practical guidelines for conducting a multiple stimulus without replacement (MSWO) preference assessment to rank order preferred activities that will align with the function of behavior for use in behavioral interventions. The use of highly preferred reinforcers to reduce student problem behaviors can enhance educational outcomes for the student.
Cannella-MaloneH. I.SabielnyL. M.JimenezE. D.MillerM. M. (2013). Pick one! Conducting preference assessments with students with significant disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 45(6), 16–23.
2.
DamonS.Riley-TilmanC. T.FiorelloC. (2008). Comparing methods of identifying reinforcing stimuli in school consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 18(1), 31–53.
3.
DeLeonI. G.IwataB. A. (1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 519–533.
4.
KingS. A. (2016). Multiple stimulus without replacement preference assessment for students at risk for emotional disturbance. Journal of Behavioral Education, 25, 431–454.
5.
KingS. A.KostewiczD. 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, 531–558.
6.
ParamoreN. W.HigbeeT. S. (2005). An evaluation of a brief multiple-stimulus preference assessment with adolescents with emotional-behavioral disorders in an educational setting. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38, 399–403.
7.
VollmerT. R.IwataB. A. (1992). Differential reinforcement as treatment for behavior disorders: Procedural and functional variations. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 13, 393–417.
8.
WeaverA. D.McKevittB. C.FarrisA. M. (2017). Using multiple-stimulus without replacement preference assessments to increase student engagement and performance. Beyond Behavior, 26, 5–10.
9.
Ackerland BrandtJ. A.DozierC. L.Foster JuanicoJ.LaudontC. L.MickB. R. (2015). The value of choice as a reinforcer for typically developing children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48, 344–362.
10.
BrodheadM. T.AbelE. A.Al-DubayanM. N.BrouwersL.Warren AbstonG.RispoliM. J. (2016). An evaluation of a brief multiple-stimulus without replacement preference assessment conducted in an electronic pictorial format. Journal of Behavioral Education, 25, 417–430.
11.
FahmieT. A.IwataB. A.JannK. E. (2015). Comparison of edible and leisure reinforcers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48, 331–343.
12.
KangS.O’ReillyM.LancioniG.FalcomataT. S.SigafoosJ.XuZ. (2013). Comparison of the predictive validity and consistency among preference assessment procedure: A review of the literature. Journal in Developmental Disabilities, 34, 1125–1133.
13.
LipschultzJ. L.VladescuJ. C.ReeveK. F.ReeveS. A.DipseyC. R. (2015). Using video modeling with voiceover instruction to train staff to conduct stimulus preference assessments. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 27, 505–532.
14.
PenceS. T.St PeterC. C.TetreaultA. S. (2012). Increasing accurate preference assessment implementation through pyramidal training. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 45, 345–359.
15.
SturmeyP.LeeR.ReyereH.RobekA. (2003). Assessing preferences for staff: Some pilot data. Behavioral and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 31, 103–107.
