Investigating the validity of a structured interview protocol for assessing the preferences of children with autism spectrum disorders

References

• Duker P, Didden R, Sigafoos J. One-to-one training: Instructional procedures for learners with developmental disabilities. Pro-Ed, Austin, TX 2004
   Google Scholar
• Logan KR, Jacobs HA, Gast DL, Smith PD, Daniel J, Rawls J. Preferences and reinforcers for students with profound multiple disabilities: Can we identify them?. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities 2001; 13: 97–122
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sigafoos J, Green VA, Payne D, Son SH, O’Reilly M, Lancioni GE. A comparison of picture exchange and speech-generating devices: Acquisition, preference, and effects on social interaction. Augmentative and Alternative Communication 2009; 25: 99–109
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green VA, Sigafoos J, Didden R, O’Reilly MF, Lancioni GE, Ollington N, Payne D. Validity of a structured interview protocol for assessing children's preferences. Early childhood education: Issues and developments, PG Grotewell, YR Burton. Nova Science Publishers, New York 2008; 87–103
   Google Scholar
• Pace GM, Ivancic MT, Edwards GL, Iwata BA, Page TJ. Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforce value with profoundly retarded individuals. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 1985; 18: 249–255
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher WW, Piazza CC, Bowman LG, Hagopian LP, Owens JC, Slevin I. A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 1992; 25: 491–498
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagopian LP, Long ES, Rush KS. Preference assessment procedures for individuals with developmental disabilities. Behavior Modification 2004; 28: 668–677
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Windsor J, Piché LM, Locke PA. Preference testing: A comparison of two presentations methods. Research in Developmental Disabilities 1994; 15: 439–455
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kang S, Lang R, O’Reilly MF, Davis T, Machalicek W, Rispoli M, Chan JM. Problem behavior during preference assessments: An empirical analysis and practical recommendations. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 2010; 43: 137–141
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kang S, O’Reilly M, Fragale C, Rispoli M, Lang R, Evaluation of the rate of problem behavior maintained by different functions across preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (in press)
   Google Scholar
• Parsons MB, Reid DH. Assessing food preferences among persons with profound mental retardation: Providing opportunities to make choice. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 1990; 23: 183–195
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Didden R, de Moor J. Preference assessment in toddlers with mild developmental and physical disabilities: A comparative study. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities 2004; 16: 107–116
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green CW, Reid DH, White LK, Halford RC, Brittain DP, Gardner SM. Identifying reinforcers for persons with profound handicaps: Staff opinion versus systematic assessment of preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 1988; 33: 365–382
   Google Scholar
• Fisher WW, Piazza CC, Bowman LG, Amari A. Integrating caregiver report with a systematic choice assessment to enhance reinforcer identification. American Journal on Mental Retardation 1996; 101: 15–25
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Matson JL, Bielecki J, Mayville EA, Smalls Y, Bamburg JW, Baglio CS. The development of a reinforcer choice assessment scale for persons with severe and profound mental retardation. Research in Developmental Disabilities 1999; 20: 379–384
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DeLeon I, Iwata BA. Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 1996; 29: 519–533
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sparrow SS, Cicchetti DV, Balla DA. Vineland-II Adaptive Behavior Scales, 2nd. Pearson, Minneapolis, MN 2005
   Google Scholar
• Carr JE, Nicolson AC, Higbee TS. Evaluation of a brief multiple-stimulus preference assessment in a naturalistic context. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 2000; 33: 353–357
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daly EJ, Wells NJ, Swanger-Gagne MS, Carr JE, Kunz GM, Taylor AM. Evaluation of the multiple-stimulus without replacement preference assessment method using activities as stimuli. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 2009; 43: 563–574
   Google Scholar
• Higbee TS, Carr JE, Harrison CD. Further evaluation of the multiple-stimulus preference assessment. Research in Developmental Disabilities 2000; 21: 61–73
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ortiz KR, Carr JE. Multiple stimulus preference assessments: A comparison of free-operant and restricted-operant formats. Behavioral Interventions 2000; 15: 345–353
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lang R, Machalicek W, Rispoli MJ, Regester A. Training parents to implement communication interventions for children with autism spectrum disorders: A systematic review of training procedures. Evidenced Based Communication Assessment and Intervention 2009; 3: 174–190
   Google Scholar
• Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ 1988
   Google Scholar
• Kennedy CH, Horner RD, Newton J, Kanda E. Measuring the activity patterns of adults with severe disabilities using the Resident Lifestyle Inventory. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps 1990; 15: 79–85
   Google Scholar
• Mason SA, McGee GG, Farmer-Dougan V, Risley TR. A practical strategy for ongoing reinforcer assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 1989; 22: 171–179
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stafford AM, Alberto PA, Fredrick LD, Heflin LJ, Heller KW. Preference variability and the instruction of choice making with students with severe intellectual disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities 2002; 37: 70–88
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar