A cumulative review and analysis of 27 empirical investigations that assessed the preferences and choices of individuals with severe or profound mental retardation was conducted. We aggregated characteristics of studies, including purpose, research design, demographic variables, and methodological features (i.e., responses assessed, length of assessment, type of data collection, number and type of stimuli presented, presentation of stimuli). Findings revealed that, since 1978, a technology has been developing for assessing preference and choice via six types of participant responses across a variety of stimulus presentations. These findings are discussed for the purpose of informing the field regarding future directions for research and practice in preference and choice assessment.
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.
BenzM. R., & McAllisterM. (1990). Occupational and leisure preferences of older adults with mental retardation. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 16, 233–244.
3.
BrownF. (1991). Creative daily scheduling: A non-intrusive approach to challenging behaviors in community residences. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 16, 75–84.
4.
BruininksR. H., ChenT. H., LakinK. C., & McGrewK. S. (1992). Components of personal competence and community integration for persons with mental retardation in small residential programs. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 13, 463–479.
5.
CataniaA. C. (1984). Learning (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
6.
CooperH., & HedgesL. V. (Eds.). (1994). The handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
7.
CooperL. J., WackerD. P., ThursbyD., PlagmannL. A., HardingJ., MillardT., & DerbyM. (1992). Analysis of the effects of task preferences, task demands, and adult attention on child behavior in outpatient and classroom settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 823–840.
8.
CrappsJ. M., LangoneJ., & SwaimS. (1985). Quantity and quality of participation in community environments by mentally retarded adults. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 20, 123–129.
9.
DattiloJ. (1986). Computerized assessment of preference for severely handicapped individuals. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 19, 445–448.
10.
DattiloJ., & MirendaP. (1987). An application of a leisure preference assessment protocol for persons with severe handicaps. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 12, 306–311.
11.
DattiloJ., & RuschF. (1985). Effects of choice on leisure participation for persons with severe handicaps. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 10, 194–199.
12.
DunlapG., DePerczelM., ClarkeS., WilsonD., WrightS., WhiteR., & GomezA. (1994). Choice making to promote adaptive behavior for students with emotional and behavioral challenges. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 505–518.
13.
DyerK. (1987). The competition of autistic stereotyped behavior with usual and specially assessed reinforcers. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 8, 607–626.
14.
DyerK. (1989). The effects of preference on spontaneous verbal requests in individuals with autism. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14, 184–189.
15.
DyerK., DunlapG., & WinterlingV. (1990). Effects of choice making on the serious problem behaviors of students with severe handicaps. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 515–524.
16.
FawG. D., DavisP. K., & PeckC. (1996). Increasing self-determination: Teaching people with mental retardation to evaluate residential options. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 173–188.
17.
FerlegerD. (1994, June). The place of choice. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Commission on Quality of Care for the Mentally Disabled, New York.
18.
FisherW., PiazzaC., BowmanL., HagopianL., OwensJ., & 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.
19.
Foster-JohnsonL., FerroJ., & DunlapG. (1994). Preferred curricular activities and reduce problem behaviors in students with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 493–504.
20.
GreenC., ReidD., CanipeV., & GardnerS. (1991). A comprehensive evaluation of reinforcer identification processes for persons with profound multiple handicaps. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 537–552.
21.
GreenC., ReidD., WhiteL., HalfordR., BrittainD., & GardnerS. (1988). Identifying reinforcers for persons with profound handicaps: Staff opinion versus systematic assessment of preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 31–43.
22.
GuessD., BensonH. A., & Siegel-CauseyE. (1985). Concepts and issues related to choice-making and autonomy among persons with severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 10, 79–86.
23.
Gutierrez-GriepR. (1984). Student preference of sensory reinforcers. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 19, 108–113.
24.
HerrnsteinR. J. (1970). On the law of effect. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13, 243–266.
25.
HoughtonJ., BronickiG. J. B., & GuessD. (1987). Opportunities to express preferences and make choices among students with severe disabilities in classroom settings. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 12, 18–27.
26.
HughesC., HwangB., KimJ. H., EisenmanL. T., & KillianD. J. (1995). Quality of life in applied research: A review and analysis of empirical measures. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 99, 623–641.
27.
KazdinA. E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York: Oxford University Press.
28.
KennedyC., & HaringT. (1993). Teaching choice making during social interactions to students with profound multiple disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 63–76.
29.
KishiG., TeelucksinghB., ZollersN., Park-LeeS., & MeyerL. (1988). Daily decision-making in community residences: A social comparison of adults with and without mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 92, 430–435.
30.
LancioniG., OlivaD., MeazziniP., & MarconiN. (1993). Building choice opportunities within occupational programs for persons with profound developmental disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 37, 23–39.
31.
MasonS., McGeeG., Farmer-DouganV., & RisleyT. (1989). A practical strategy for ongoing reinforcer assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22, 171–179.
32.
MithaugD., & HanawaltD. (1978). The validation of procedures to assess prevocational task preferences in retarded adults. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 153–162.
33.
MithaugD., & MarD. (1980). The relation between choosing and working prevocational tasks in two severely retarded young adults. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 177–182.
34.
NewtonJ., ArdW.Jr., & HornerR. (1993). Validating predicted activity preferences of individuals with severe disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 239–245.
35.
NewtonJ. S., HornerR. H., & LundL. (1991). Honoring activity preferences in individualized plan development: A descriptive analysis. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 16, 207–212.
36.
NirjeB. (1976). The normalization principle. In KugelR. & ShearerA. (Eds.), Changing patterns in residential services for the mentally retarded (Rev. ed.), (DHEW No. [OHD] 76-21015). Washington, DC: President's Committee on Mental Retardation.
37.
PaceG., IvancicM., EdwardsG., IwataB., & PageT. (1985). Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 249–255.
38.
ParsonsM., McCarnJ., & ReidD. (1993). Evaluating and increasing meal-related choice throughout a service setting for people with severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 18, 253–260.
39.
ParsonsM., & ReidD. (1990). Assessing food preferences among persons with profound mental retardation: Providing opportunities to make choices. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 183–195.
40.
ParsonsR., ReidD., ReynoldsJ., & BumgarnerM. (1990). Effects of chosen versus assigned jobs on the work performance of persons with severe handicaps. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 253–258.
41.
PiazzaC. C., FisherW. W., HagopianL. P., BowmanL. G., & TooleL. (1996). Using a choice assessment to predict reinforcer effectiveness. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 1–9.
42.
RappaportJ. (1987). Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a theory for community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 122–143.
43.
RealonR., FavellJ., & LowerreA. (1990). The effects of making choices on engagement levels with persons who are profoundly multiply handicapped. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 25, 299–305.
44.
ReichleJ., SigafoosJ., & PicheL. (1989). Teaching an adolescent with blindness and severe disabilities: A correspondence between requesting and selecting preferred objects. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14, 75–80.
45.
RyndersJ. E., & FriedlanderB. Z. (1972). Preferences in institutionalized severely retarded children for selected visual stimulus material presented as operant reinforcement. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 76, 568–573.
46.
SchalockR. L. (1996). Reconsidering the conceptualization and measurement of quality of life. In SchalockR. L. (Ed.), Quality of Life: Vol. 1. Conceptualization and measurement (pp. 123–139). Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.
47.
SchweigertP., & RowlandC. (1992). Early communication and microtechnology: Instructional sequence and case studies of children with severe multiple disabilities. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 8, 273–286.
48.
ShevinM., & KleinN. K. (1984). The importance of choice-making skills for students with severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 9, 159–166.
49.
SigafoosJ., & DempseyR. (1992). Assessing choice making among children with multiple disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 747–755.
50.
SkinnerB. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
51.
SotoG., BelfioreP. J., SchlosserR. W., & HaynesC. (1993). Teaching specific requests: A comparative analysis on skill acquisition and preference using two augmentative and alternative communication aids. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 28, 169–178.
52.
StancliffeR., & WehmeyerM. L. (1995). Variability in the availability of choice to adults with mental retardation. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 5, 319–328.
53.
SteegeM. W., WackerD. P., BergW. K., CigrandK. K., & CooperL. J. (1989). The use of behavioral assessment to prescribe and evaluate treatments for severely handicapped children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22, 23–33.
54.
WackerD., BergW., WigginsB., MuldoonM., & CavanaughJ. (1985). Evaluation of reinforcer preference for profoundly handicapped students. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 173–178.
55.
WackerD., WigginsB., FowlerM., & BergW. (1988). Training students with profound or multiple handicaps to make requests via microswitches. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 331–343.
56.
WehmeyerM. L., KelchnerK., & RichardsS. (1996). Essential characteristics of self-determined behavior of individuals with mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 100, 632–642.
57.
WehmeyerM. L., & MetzlerC. A. (1995). How self-determined are people with mental retardation? The national consumer survey. Mental Retardation, 33, 111–119.
58.
WestM. D., & ParentW. S. (1992). Consumer choice and empowerment in supported employment services: Issues and strategies. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 17, 47–52.
59.
WinkingD., O'ReillyB., & MoonM. (1993). Preference: The missing link in the job match process for individuals without functional communication skills. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 3, 27–42.
