Assessing the leisure preferences of adults with severe disabilities can be complicated by underdeveloped communication, choice making, and leisure experiences. Determining preferences can be especially difficult for activities and settings, which are abstractions, in contrast to objects or materials, which are concrete and visible. This study demonstrated a method to determine setting preferences and subsequently, to teach three adults with severe mental retardation to express their choice between settings for similar leisure activities. Observations of duration of participation revealed differences between settings for all three adults. The adults then learned to use objects associated with the settings to communicate their choice between a community and center-based option.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BannermanD. J., SheldonJ. B., ShermanJ. A., & HarchikA. E. (1990). Balancing the right to habilitation with the right to personal liberties: The rights of people with developmental disabilities to eat too many doughnuts and take a nap. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 79–89.
2.
BelfioreP. J., BrowderD. M., & MaceF. M. (1993). Effects of community and center-based settings on the alertness of persons with profound with profound mental retardation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 401–402.
3.
BelfioreP. J., BrowderD. M., & MaceF. M. (1994). Assessing choice-making and preference in adults with profound mental retardation. Journal of Behavioral Education, 4, 217–225.
4.
DattiloJ., & MirendaP. (1987). An application of leisure preference assessment protocol for persons with severe handicaps. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 12, 306–311.
5.
DatilloF., & RuschF. R. (1985). Effects of choice on leisure participation for persons with severe handicaps. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 10, 194–199.
6.
FisherW., PiazzaC. C., BowmanL. G., HagopianL. P., OwensJ. C., & SlevinI. (1992). A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 491–498.
7.
GreenC. W., ReidD. H., WhiteL. K., HalfordR. C., BrittainD. P., & GardnerS. M. (1988). Identifying reinforcers for persons with profound handicaps: Staff opinion versus systematic assessment of preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 31–44.
8.
MillerU. C., & TestD. W. (1989). A Comparision of constant time delay and most-to-least prompts in teaching laundry skills to students with moderate retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 24, 363–370.
9.
NewtonJ. S., HornerR. H., & LundL. (1991). Honoring activity preferences in individualized plan development: A descriptive analysis. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 16, 207–212.
10.
PaceG., IvancicM., EdwardsG., IwataB., & PageT. (1985). Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer values with profoundly retarded individuals. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 249–255.
11.
ParsonsM. B., McCarnJ. E., & ReidD. (1993). Evaluating and increasing meal-related choices throughout a service setting for people with severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 18, 253–260.
12.
ParsonsM. B., & ReidD. (1990). Assessing food preferences among persons with profound mental retardation: Providing opportunities to make choices. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 183–195.
13.
ReichleJ., & KeoghW. J. (1986). Communication instruction for learners with severe handicaps: Some unresolved issues. In HornerR. H., MeyerL. H., & FrederickH. D. B. (Eds.), Education of learners with severe handicaps: Exemplary service strategies (pp. 189–219). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
14.
ReichleJ., YorkJ., & EynonD. (1989). Influence of indicating preferences for initiating, maintaining, and terminating interactions. In BrownF. & LehrD. H. (Eds.), Persons with profound disabilities. (pp. 191–212). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
15.
SchusterJ. W., & GriffenA. K. (1991). Using constant time delay to teach recipe following skills. Education and Training Mental Retardation, 26, 411–419.
16.
SigafoosJ., & DempseyR. (1992). Assessing choice among children with multiple disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 747–756.
17.
WoleryM., AultM. J., GastD. L., DoyleP. M., & GriffenA. K. (1990). Comparision of constant time delay and the system of least prompts in teaching chained tasks. Education and Training Mental Retardation, 25, 243–257.
