A comparison of preference‐assessment methods
Pick paired-stimulus or MSWO for steady ranks, free-operant for calmer testing, and still get reinforcers that work.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Verriden et al. (2016) ran four kinds of preference assessments with kids who had autism or brain injury.
They compared paired-stimulus, MSWO, free-operant, and response-restriction formats across sessions.
The team watched which method gave the same top items each time and which kept problem behavior low.
What they found
Paired-stimulus and MSWO gave the steadiest toy rankings from day to day.
Free-operant play sparked the least crying or hitting while still letting reinforcers work.
Even when favorites shifted a little, all top picks still worked as rewards.
How this fits with other research
MacNaul et al. (2021) pooled many studies and agree: paired-stimulus stays stable if you repeat it every 8–30 days.
Curiel et al. (2024) pushed the idea further. Their free web MSWO tool picked videos that boosted work for most preschoolers with autism.
Goulardins et al. (2013) seems to clash. They saw MSWO ranks drift in older adults with dementia over three to five months. The gap is about people, not the method. Kids with autism show steadier likes than adults with memory loss, so reassess more often with dementia.
Why it matters
Use paired-stimulus or MSWO when you need a solid hierarchy for token boards or DRO plans. Switch to free-operant if the learner bolts or screams during testing. Either way, run a quick reinforcer check before each new program to be sure the top items still work.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run a five-minute MSWO with your learner’s current toys and test the top two as reinforcers in the next task.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
In Study 1, we evaluated preference stability across 4 preference-assessment methods for 6 individuals, 5 of whom had autism spectrum disorder and 1 of whom had traumatic brain injury. We also measured participants' problem behavior as a corollary measure during all assessment methods. The highest mean correlation coefficients and Kendall rank coefficients of concordance across administrations were observed for the paired-stimulus and multiple-stimulus-without-replacement methods. Lower correspondence across administrations was observed for the free-operant and response-restriction methods. Although differentially higher levels of problem behavior did not occur with a single method, lower levels were consistently observed with the free-operant method. During Study 2, we evaluated the implications of lower coefficients on reinforcer efficacy by comparing an initially identified and an immediately identified high-preference stimulus in a reinforcer assessment. Initially identified and immediately identified high-preference stimuli were equally effective reinforcers, suggesting that fluctuations in preference do not necessarily affect reinforcer efficacy in practice.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2016 · doi:10.1002/jaba.302