The internal consistency and factor structure of the Choice Assessment Scale.

The team built a 60-item checklist called the Choice Assessment Scale (CAS). They asked the adults with severe or profound ID to pick preferred items.

Staff watched and scored which objects the clients touched, looked at, or used for more than five seconds. The researchers then ran stats to see if the items grouped into clear reinforcer types.

All 60 items hung together well; the scale showed high internal consistency. Four tidy clusters emerged: edibles, tactile toys, building items, and visual-sensory objects.

These four factors matched what staff already saw in day rooms. The CAS gives you a quick, numbers-based way to find likely reinforcers without long preference tests.

Guerin et al. (2009) and van Schrojenstein Lantman-de Valk et al. (2006) used the same check-the-box method to validate ID tools. Like the CAS, both found strong reliability, showing the approach works across very different topics—grief and sexual knowledge.

Derks et al. (2017) trimmed a 40-item autism screen to 24 items and lost some accuracy in severe ID. Peter et al. kept all 60 CAS items to protect reliability; the papers together warn that short cuts can cost you precision when clients have limited verbal skills.

Jones et al. (2010) built the QUALITRA-ID through long interviews, while Peter used quick staff observation. Both serve person-centered planning: one captures care opinions, the other spots favorite items. Use them side-by-side for a fuller picture.

You now have a free, 10-minute scale that sorts reinforcers into four baskets staff already understand. No trial-and-error needed. Plug the top items from each factor into your token board, DRO plan, or leisure program and watch engagement rise.