This article presents three empirical demonstrations of desirable effects that accrued from modifying curricular activities in accordance with individual students' interests. Participants were three elementary students with disabilities and diverse labels including autism, mental retardation, and emotional and behavioral disorder. In each case, the instructional objective was held constant; whereas, the context of the activity was modified so that it produced an outcome that was judged to be meaningful and reinforcing to the student. Reversal designs showed that each student exhibited less problem behavior and more on-task responding when the modified activity was presented. These results are discussed in relation to the applied and conceptual literatures on curricular design, student preference, and the expanding enterprise of positive behavioral support.
BambaraL. M.AgerC.KogerF. (1994). The effects of choice and task preference on the work performance of adults with severe disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 555–556.
2.
BrownL.BranstonM. B.BaumgartD.VincentL.FalveyM.SchoederJ. (1979). Using the characteristics of current and subsequent least restrictive environments as factors in the development of curricular content for severely handicapped adolescents and young adults. Journal of Special Education, 13, 81–90.
3.
CarrE. G.RobinsonS.PalumboL. W. (1990). The wrong issue: Aversive versus nonaversive treatment. The right issue: Functional versus nonfunctional treatment. In ReppA. C.SinghN. (Eds.), Perspectives on the use of nonaversive interventions for persons with development disabilities (pp. 361–379). DeKalb, IL: Sycamore.
4.
ClarkeS.DunlapG.Foster-JohnsonL.ChildsK. E.WilsonD.WhiteR.VeraA. (1995). Improving the conduct of students with behavioral disorders by incorporating student interests into curricular activities. Behavioral Disorders. 20, 221–237.
5.
DunlapG. (1984). The influence of task variation and maintenance tasks on the learning and affect of autistic children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 37, 41–64.
6.
DunlapG.dePerczelM.ClarkeS.WilsonD.WrightS.GomezA. (1994). Choice making to promote adaptive behavior for students with emotional and behavioral challenges. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 505–518.
7.
DunlapG.KernL. (1993). Assessment and intervention for children within the instructional curriculum. In ReichleJ.WackerD. (Eds.), Communicative approaches to the management of challenging behavior problems (pp. 177–203). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
8.
DunlapG.Kern-DunlapL.ClarkeS.RobbinsF. R. (1991). Functional assessment, curricular revision, and severe behavior problems. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 387–397.
9.
DunlapG.KernL.dePerczelM.ClarkeS.WilsonD.ChildsK.WhiteR.FalkG. D. (1993). Functional analysis of classroom variables for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 18, 275–291.
10.
DyerK. (1987). The competition between autistic stereotyped behavior with usual and specially assessed reinforcers. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 8, 607–626.
11.
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.
12.
FalveyM. A. (1986). Community based curriculum. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
13.
FerroJ.Foster-JohnsonL.DunlapG. (1994). The relationship between curricular activities and problem behavior in students with intellectual disabilities. Manuscript submitted for publication.
14.
Foster-JohnsonL.FerroJ.DunlapG. (1994). Preferred curricular activities and reduced problem behaviors in students with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 493–504.
15.
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, 31–43.
16.
GuessD.BensonH. S.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.
17.
HornerR. H.BillingsleyF. F. (1988). The effect of competing behavior on the generalization and maintenance of adaptive behavior in applied settings. In HornerR. H.DunlapG.KoegelR. L. (Eds.). Generalization and maintenance: Lifestyle changes in applied settings (pp. 197–220). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
18.
HornerR. H.SpragueJ. R.FlanneryK. B. (1993). Building functional curricular for students with severe intellectual disabilities and severe problem behaviors. In Van HoutenR.AxelrodS. (Eds.), Behavior analysis and treatment (pp. 47–71). New York: Plenum Press.
19.
IwataB. A.VollmerT. R.ZarconeJ. R. (1990). The experimental (functional) analysis of behavior disorders: Methodology, applications, and limitations. In ReppA. C.SinghN. N. (Eds.) Perspectives on the use of nonaversive and aversive interventions for persons with developmental disabilities, (pp. 301–330). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore Press.
20.
KernL.DunlapG.ClarkeS.ChildsK. E. (1994). Student-assisted functional assessment interview. Diagnostique, 19, 29–39.
21.
KoegelR.DyerK.BellL. (1987). The influence of child-preferred activities on autistic children's social behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20, 243–252.
22.
KoegelR. L.EgelA. L.WilliamsJ. A. (1980). Behavioral contrast and transfer across settings in teaching autistic children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 30, 422–437.
23.
KoegelR. L.WilliamsJ. A. (1980). Direct vs. indirect response-reinforcer relationships in teaching autistic children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 8, 537–547.
24.
MunkD. D.ReppA. C. (1994). The relationship between instructional variables and problem behavior: A review. Exceptional Children, 60, 390–401.
25.
NeelR. S.BillingsleyF. F. (1989). Impact: A functional curriculum handbook for students with moderate to severe disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
26.
PaceG. M.IvancicM. R.EdwardsG. L.IwataB. A.PageT. J. (1985). Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 249–255.
27.
ParsonsM. B.ReidD. H.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.
28.
ParsonsonB. S.BaerD. M. (1986). The graphic analysis of data. In PolingA.FuquaR. W. (Eds.), Research methods in applied behavior analysis: Issues and advances (157–186). New York: Plenum Press.
29.
ReynoldsG. S. (1961). Behavior contrast. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 4, 57–71.
30.
SeybertS.DunlapG.FerroJ. (in press). The effects of choice making on the problem behaviors of high school students with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education.
31.
SigafoosJ.DempseyR. (1992). Assessing choice making among children with multiple disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 747–755.
32.
WackerD. P.BergW. K.WigginsB.MuldoonM.CavanaughJ. (1985). Evaluation of reinforcer preferences for profoundly handicapped students. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 173–178.
33.
WilliamsJ. A.KoegelR. L.EgelA. L. (1981). Response-reinforcer relationships and improved learning in autistic children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 53–60.
