Validity of the multiple‐stimulus without replacement preference assessment for edible items

Fritz et al. (2020) tested how well the MSWO picks the best edible reinforcer. They ran the standard array-of-foods procedure with a small group of participants. Then they checked if the item ranked first actually produced the most responding in a brief reinforcer test.

The MSWO got it right about three times out of four. For roughly one in every four clients, the assessment missed the true highest-quality food. The authors warn that a quick reinforcer check is still needed before you start treatment.

Sipila‐Thomas et al. (2021) seem to disagree at first glance. They saw edibles completely knock out leisure choices for about one in six kids with ASD. The difference is population: Fritz looked at general validity while Sipila‐Thomas focused on displacement within autism, so both can be true.

Ortega et al. (2012) flip the pattern. Every adult with dementia in their study preferred leisure items over snacks. Age and diagnosis explain the opposite result.

Curiel et al. (2018) extend the same MSWO logic to videos online. Their web format still produced clear hierarchies, showing the procedure travels well across stimuli and settings.

You can keep using the MSWO for edible items, but treat the top pick as a good guess, not a guarantee. Run a one-minute reinforcer test before you build your program. If you work with kids with ASD, watch for edible displacement. If you serve older adults, start with leisure items first.