Assessing Preference for Activities and Instructional Contexts

Many teachers of students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are familiar with traditional preference assessment methodologies to identify high-preferred items. Traditional preference assessments are valuable; however, they may not be appropriate when identifying preferences for some educational activities and instructional contexts. The concurrent-chains preference assessment (CCPA) is a preference assessment variation that has been effectively used with students with ASD to identify preferred and nonpreferred activities and contexts. This article introduces teachers to the CCPA and discusses its utility and applications for students with ASD, as well as recommendations for effective implementation.

The Use of Stimulus Preference Assessments to Determine Procedural Acceptability for Participants

The social validity of behavior intervention is rooted in consumer perception. This information is typically garnered through questionnaires and interviews conducted with relevant consumers such as teachers or caregivers. Often, the participants (i.e., the individuals with disabilities receiving the intervention) play less of a role in the assessment of social validity, despite their primary role in intervention. This study examines a procedure for including participants in the assessment of social validity, namely procedural acceptability. Three participants selected their preferred intervention in a paired stimulus preference assessment. Videos presented the intervention options, and participants’ preferred interventions were implemented. These interventions decreased target behavior(s) and increased on-task behavior for all participants. The article concludes with a discussion of implications for use of this procedure and considerations for including participants in social validity assessments.

Which Trauma Treatment Suits me? Identification of Patients' Treatment Preferences for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)

Several psychotherapy treatments exist for posttraumatic stress disorder. This study examines the treatment preferences of treatment-seeking traumatized adults in Germany and investigates the reasons for their treatment choices. Preferences for prolonged exposure, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR), psychodynamic psychotherapy and stabilization were assessed via an online survey. Reasons for preferences were analyzed by means of thematic coding by two independent rates. 104 traumatized adults completed the survey. Prolonged exposure and CBT were each preferred by nearly 30%, and EMDR and psychodynamic psychotherapy were preferred by nearly 20%. Stabilization was significantly less preferred than all other options, by only 4%. Significantly higher proportions of patients were disinclined to choose EMDR and stabilization. Patients who preferred psychodynamic psychotherapy were significantly older than those who preferred CBT. Reasons underlying preferences included the perceived treatment mechanisms and treatment efficacy. Traumatized patients vary in their treatment preferences. Preference assessments may help clinicians comprehensively address patients' individual needs and thus improve therapy outcomes.

Supporting Persons With Severe Dementia in Communicating Their Preferences

Government mandates require US nursing homes to provide preference-based, person-centered care. Persons with dementia (PWD) are less likely to have a role in preference assessments (PAs) used for care planning due to communication challenges associated with the disease. Thus, PWD are at risk of receiving de-personalized treatments. External supports (photograph and text cues) are known to improve communication in PWD. Yet these cues have never been studied with widely used PAs, such as the MDS 3.0 Section F and Preferences for Everyday Living Inventory (PELI). This study examined the effect of two PA conditions (externally supported; standard verbal) on preference consistency and response types (off-topic, clarification requests, elaboration) of residents with severe dementia (N=21) (BIMS < 7) when assessed twice, one-week apart. PA questions were derived from the MDS 3.0 Section F and PELI. As a social validity measure, naïve judges (N=10) listened to interviews and rated residents’ communication clarity and their confidence understanding residents’ preferences. Results showed that neither condition promoted significantly greater levels of consistency over time. Residents’ ‘clarification requests’ were significantly fewer with use of external supports. Other response types were not significantly different across conditions. Judges’ ratings were not significantly different across conditions; however, they rated residents’ communication as clear and understandable overall. This study addresses a gap in current research and holds important implications for helping providers meet government mandates and enhance care plan participation by residents with severe dementia and other communication challenges.