A comparison of verbal and tangible stimulus preference assessments.

The team compared two ways to find reinforcers. One way showed clients the real items. The other way only said the item names out loud.

They used an alternating-treatments design. Adults with intellectual disability picked their top items under both conditions.

The goal was to see if talking about items gave the same answers as touching them.

For about two-thirds of clients, the verbal list matched the tangible items. The high-preference toys were the same.

The verbal method took less time. No extra setup or cleanup was needed.

Kahng et al. (1999) tested pictures against real items one year earlier. They found real items gave stronger choices. The two studies seem to clash, but they don’t. S used pictures, not words. Pictures are weaker symbols than speech for these adults.

Amore et al. (2011) later built a flowchart for clinicians. It tells you when to use tangible, verbal, or other formats. Their guide rests on the same data Cohen-Almeida et al. (2000) collected.

Simonian et al. (2020) swept 13 workplace studies into one review. Verbal and tangible SPAs both appear in adult employment settings. The 2000 experiment is an early brick in that wall.

You can start with a quick verbal choice list during intake. If the client’s top items work as reinforcers, you just saved minutes every session. If not, switch to tangible presentation. This paper gives you permission to try the faster road first without guessing.