Evaluating preference assessments for use in the general education population.
Teacher ranking picks math reinforcers just as well as MSWO for typical grade-school kids.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team compared two ways to pick math rewards for typical second-graders.
They tried the MSWO preference assessment and a quick teacher ranking.
Then they checked which reward pack made kids solve more math problems.
What they found
Both reward packs beat no reward for two of the four children.
The MSWO pack and the teacher pick worked the same.
No child did better with one pick method over the other.
How this fits with other research
MacNaul et al. (2021) say to re-test preferences every 8–30 days with paired items.
Matson et al. (2008) did not re-test, so we do not know if teacher ranks hold next week.
Goulardins et al. (2013) later used MSWO with dementia adults and saw choices shift in months.
Together the papers warn: first picks may work, but check again soon.
Why it matters
You can save time in a general ed classroom. Ask the teacher to rank rewards before you set up a full MSWO. If the child works, you are done. Still, plan to check again in a few weeks because likes change.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Before math time, ask the teacher to name three rewards the child loves and try them first.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
This study compared the effectiveness of a multiple-stimulus-without-replacement (MSWO) preference assessment and teacher preference ranking in identifying reinforcers for use in a general education setting with typically developing elementary-school children. The mean number of digits correctly answered was greater in the MSWO-selected reward and the teacher-selected reward conditions relative to the no-reward condition for 2 of the 4 participants, but there were no differences between the MSWO-selected and teacher-selected reward conditions for any participant.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 2008 · doi:10.1901/jaba.2008.41-447