Identifying reinforcers for persons with profound handicaps: staff opinion versus systematic assessment of preferences.
A five-minute approach test finds real reinforcers for clients with profound ID; staff opinion does not.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team worked with adults who have profound intellectual disabilities.
Staff first named items they thought each person liked.
Then the researchers ran a short systematic test.
They placed two items on a table and watched which one the adult reached for.
After several trials they ranked items by how often the person approached them.
What they found
Items picked by the systematic test later worked as reinforcers.
Items staff guessed rarely worked unless the test also showed they were preferred.
Caregiver opinion alone was a poor predictor of what would motivate the clients.
How this fits with other research
Allan et al. (1991) repeated the same study and got the same result—systematic tests beat staff guesses.
Parsons et al. (1990) focused only on food and drinks; again, caregiver predictions were wrong while brief choice trials were right.
Kangas et al. (2011) extended the idea to adults who can move only one switch.
They used a two-choice switch procedure and still found clear preferences, showing the method works even with severe motor limits.
Why it matters
You can waste weeks reinforcing with the wrong items if you rely on staff hunches.
Run a five-minute approach test instead.
Place two potential items side by side, let the client reach, swap sides, repeat ten times, and count the approaches.
The top item is your reinforcer—no guessing, no long interviews, just quick data that works.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pick two novel items, run ten paired approach trials, and use the winner to reinforce a simple response.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
We evaluated a systematic means of determining stimulus preferences among seven profoundly handicapped persons. Preferences were determined by observing student approach responses to individual stimuli. Results indicated that there were differential stimulus preferences across the multiply handicapped participants. However, results of the systematic assessment did not coincide with the results of a more traditional, caregiver-opinion method of assessing student preferences. A second experiment was then conducted with five participants to evaluate whether stimuli that were assessed to consistently represent preferences would function as reinforcers in skill training programs. Results indicated that stimuli that were systematically assessed to represent student preferences typically functioned as reinforcers when applied contingently. However, preferred stimuli as reflected by caregiver opinion did not function as reinforcers unless those stimuli were also preferred on the systematic assessment. Results are discussed in terms of assisting profoundly handicapped persons by (a) improving the effectiveness of training programs by increasing the likelihood of using stimuli that have reinforcing value and (b) increasing the overall quality of life by providing preferred stimuli in the routine living environment.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1988 · doi:10.1901/jaba.1988.21-31