A comprehensive evaluation of reinforcer identification processes for persons with profound multiple handicaps.
A quick approach test finds longer-lasting reinforcers than caregiver guesses for clients with profound multiple handicaps.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team worked with people who have profound multiple handicaps.
They compared two ways to find reinforcers: caregiver opinion and a short systematic test.
In the test, the learner simply approached one of two items.
The study ran several trials to see which items held up as true reinforcers over time.
What they found
Caregiver guesses were often wrong.
The systematic approach test picked items that kept their power weeks later.
Items chosen by the test increased behaviors when used as reinforcers.
How this fits with other research
Buskist et al. (1988) asked the same question three years earlier and got the same answer: test beats opinion.
Fritz et al. (2020) later showed the quicker MSWO method works for most clients, updating the toolkit.
Kangas et al. (2011) extended the idea to adults who can press only one switch, proving the rule still holds when you tweak the format.
Donahoe et al. (2000) showed you can embed the same brief trials inside daily routines instead of running separate sessions.
Why it matters
Stop asking staff, "What does he like?" Run a two-item approach test for two minutes.
Use the winners right away and recheck every few weeks.
This simple habit saves session time, reduces problem behavior, and keeps treatment strong.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick two items, place them apart, let the client approach, and record the choice for five trials—use the top item first in teaching.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
We evaluated comprehensively a preference assessment for identifying reinforcers for persons with profound multiple handicaps. Four experiments were conducted involving 18 individuals. Results of Experiment 1 replicated previous findings in that the assessment identified student preferences for respective stimuli, and caregiver opinion of preferences did not coincide with the systematic assessment. Results of Experiment 2 indicated highly preferred stimuli were likely to function as reinforcers in training programs, whereas stimuli not highly preferred did not function as reinforcers. Results of Experiment 3 suggested the 12 stimuli used in the assessment represented a comprehensive stimulus set for identifying preferences, although the utility of the set sometimes could be enhanced by caregiver opinion. Results of Experiment 4 indicated the assessment identified preferences likely to be maintained over time. Overall, results are discussed in terms of identifying limits and alternatives to a behavioral teaching technology when applied to persons with profound multiple handicaps.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1991 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1991.24-537