Assessing preferences of individuals with developmental disabilities using alternative stimulus modalities: A systematic review

Heinicke et al. (2019) read every paper they could find on picture, word, and video preference tests for people with developmental disabilities. They kept 32 studies that tried these new ways instead of letting clients touch the real items. They did not add the numbers together; they simply mapped what had been tried.

The team saw a patchwork. Some studies said pictures worked fine. Others needed extra steps like giving the real item after the picture was picked. No single method won. The big lesson: check if the client can use that format and always give the chosen item right away.

Kittler et al. (2004) already told us to mix caregiver questions with hands-on trials. The new review keeps that advice and adds: if you go high-tech, still give real reinforcement.

Chebli et al. (2016) showed a five-minute tablet video test predicted reinforcers for kids with autism. Heinicke’s wider look says video can work, but only if you later let the child watch the chosen clip for real.

Morris et al. (2023) now claim video beats other formats for social stimuli. Heinicke does not fight this; their pool simply reminds us to test prerequisite skills first.

Haddock et al. (2020) reviewed competing-stimulus tests for problem behavior. Both reviews share the same rule: an assessment is only as good as the real items it leads to.

Next time you open an iPad or lay out photos, run a quick check: can my client point, name, or match the pictures? If yes, proceed, but still hand over the real cookie, toy, or video right after the choice. This small step turns a fun game into an honest reinforcer finder.