Systematic preference assessment is the process of presenting sampling trials and observing the person's response. The response to those items is then interpreted as an indicator of preference. The empirical research on systematic preference assessment has greatly advanced the field's understanding of how to identify the preferences of individuals with nonsymbolic and limited symbolic communication skills. The purpose of this paper is to translate this research into guidelines for planning systematic preference assessments that strive to reduce the risk of missing or misinterpreting the person's preferences, as well as increase the social validity of the process and outcomes. We present four guiding questions for practitioners to plan preference assessments: (a) What will be offered? (b) When and where will sampling opportunities take place? (c) Who will present the sampling options? and (d) How will sampling options be presented?
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.
BambaraL. M.ColeC. L.KogerF. (1998). Translating self-determination concepts into supports for adults with severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 23, 27–37.
3.
BambaraL. M.GomezO.KogerF.Lohrmann-O'RourkeS. (1998, December). Through the eyes of team members: The meaning of positive approaches. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, Seattle, Washington.
4.
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.
5.
BelifioreP. J.BrowderD. M.MaceC. (1994). Assessing choice making and preference in adults with profound mental retardation across community and center based settings. Journal of Behavioral Education, 4, 217–225.
6.
BrowderD. M.CooperK.LimL. (1998). Teaching adults with severe disabilities to express their choice of settings for leisure activities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33, 228–238.
7.
BrownF.GothelfC. R.GuessD.LehrD. (1998). Self-determination for individuals with the most severe disabilities: Moving beyond chimera. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 23, 17–26.
8.
BrownF.SnellM. E. (1993). Meaningful assessment. In SnellM. E. (Ed.), Instruction of students with severe disabilities (4th ed., pp. 61–98). New York: Merrill/Macmillan.
9.
ButterfieldN.ArthurM. (1995). Shifting the focus: Emerging priorities in communication programming for students with a severe intellectual disability. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 30, 41–50.
10.
CarrE. G.CarlsonJ. I.LandgonN. A.Magito-McLaughlinD.YarbroughS. C. (1998). Two perspectives on antecedent control: Molecular and molar. In LuiselliJ. K.CameronM. J. (Eds.), Antecedent control: Innovative approaches to behavioral support (pp. 3–28). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
11.
CooperK. J.BrowderD. M. (1998). Teaching adults with severe disabilities to express choice in a community routine. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 23, 252–260.
12.
DattiloJ.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.
13.
DeLeonI. G.IwataB. A. (1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 519–534.
14.
DerbyK. M.WackerD. P.AndelmanM.BergW.DrewJ.AsmusJ.ProutyA. M.LaffeyP. (1995). Two measures of preference during forced-choice assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 345–346.
15.
DyerK. (1987). The competition of autistic stereotyped behavior with usual and specially assessed reinforcers. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 8, 607–626.
16.
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.
17.
FisherW. W.PiazzaC. C.BowmanL. G.AmariA. (1996). Integrating caregiver report with a systematic choice assessment to enhance reinforcer identification. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 101, 15–25.
18.
FisherW. W.PiazzaC. C.BowmanL. P.HagopianL. P.OwenJ. 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.
19.
FoxxR. M.FawG. D.TaylorS.DavisP. K.FuliaR. (1993). “Would I be able to … ?” Teaching clients to assess the availability of their community living lifestyle preferences. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 98, 235–248.
20.
GreenC. W.ReidD. H.WhiteL. K.HalformR. C.BrittainD. P.GarnderS. M. (1991). Identifying reinforcers for persons with profound handicaps: Staff opinion versus systematic assessment of preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 31–43.
21.
HughesC.PitkinS. E.LordenS. W. (1998). Assessing preferences and choices of persons with severe and profound mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33, 299–316.
22.
KearnyC. A.McKnightT. J. (1997). Preference, choice, and persons with disabilities: A synopsis of assessments, interventions, and future directions. Clinical Psychology Review, 17, 217–238.
23.
KennedyC. G.HaringT. G. (1993). Teaching choice making during social interactions to students with profound multiple disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 63–76.
24.
KoegelR. L.DyerK.BellL. K. (1987). The influence of child preferred activities on autistic children's social behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20, 243–252.
25.
Lohrmann-O'RourkeS.BrowderD. M. (1998). Empirically based methods to assess the preferences of individuals with severe disabilities. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 103, 146–161.
26.
Lohrmann-O'RourkeS.YurmanB. (in press). Assessment and intervention of mouthing behaviors: The influence of establishing operations. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions.
27.
MasonS. A.McGeeG. G.Farmer-DouganV.RisleyT. R. (1989). A practical strategy for ongoing reinforcer assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22, 171–179.
28.
MithaugD. E.HanawaltD. A. (1978). The validation of procedures to assess prevocational task preferences in retarded adults. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 153–162.
29.
MithaugD. E.MarD. K. (1980). The relation between choosing and working on prevocational tasks in two severely retarded young adults. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 177–182.
30.
NewtonJ. S.ArdW. R.HornerR. H., (1993). Validating predicted activity preferences of individuals with severe disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 239–245.
31.
NozakiK.MochizukiA. (1995). Assessing choice making of a person with profound disabilities: A preliminary analysis. Journal of the Association of Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20, 196–201.
32.
PaceG. M.IvancicM. T.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.
33.
ParsonsM. B.ReidD. H. (1990). Assessing food preferences among persons with profound mental retardation: Providing opportunities to make choices. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 183–195.
34.
ReidD. H.ParsonsM. B.GreenC. W. (1998). Identifying work preferences among individuals with severe multiple disabilities prior to beginning supported work. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31, 281–286.
35.
SalmentoM.BambaraL. M. (2000). Teaching staff members to provide choice opportunities for adults with multiple disabilities. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 2, 12–21.
36.
SigafoosJ.DempseyR. (1992). Assessing choice making among children with multiple disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 747–755.
37.
SigafoosJ.LaurieS.PennellD. (1995). Preliminary assessment of choice making among children with Rett syndrome. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20, 175–184.
38.
SmithR. G.IwataB. A.ShoreB. A. (1995). Effects of subject versus experimenter selected reinforcers on the behavior of individuals with profound developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 61–72.
39.
StaffordA. M. (1999). Preference variability and the instruction of choice making with students with severe intellectual disabilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University.
40.
WackerD. P.BergW. K.WigginsB.MuldoonB.CavanaughJ. (1985). Evaluation of reinforcer preferences for profoundly handicapped students. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 173–178.
41.
WehmeyerM. L. (1998). Self-determination and individuals with significant disabilities: Examining meanings and misinterpretations. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 23, 5–16.
42.
WindsorJ.PicheL. M.LockeP. A. (1994). Preference testing: A comparison of two presentation methods. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 15, 439–455.
