A Component Analysis of a Video Training Package for Conducting Paired-Stimulus Preference Assessments Candice Hansard & Ellie Kazemi California State University, Northridge CalABA, 2015 San Diego, CA 1 Teaching New Skills •  Identify potential reinforcers (DeLeon, & Iwata, 1996) •  Identify preference –  Surveys •  Low validity •  Not always feasible –  Preference assessments •  High validity (Piazza, Fisher, Hagopian, Bowman, & Toole, 1996) •  Feasible with adequate training 2 Best Practice: Training the Implementation of Preference Assessments •  Trainer-‐‑facilitated –  Instructions –  Modeling –  Rehearsal –  Feedback •  Training time –  80 minutes per staﬀ 3 Lavie & Sturmey, 2002; Roscoe & Fisher, 2008 Videos as an Eﬃcient Training Approach •  Weldy et al. (2013) –  Trained 9 behavioral technicians •  Video Package (MSWO & FO preference assessment) –  Models –  Audio Instructions •  Rosales et al. (2014) –  Trained 3 Teachers •  Video Package (PS, MSWO, FO preference assessment) –  Models –  Wri^en Instructions 4 Video Training Limitations •  Some participants viewed the video more then once –  Require assessment for all trainees –  Delivering services 5 Purpose •  Study 1 –  Evaluate the eﬀectiveness of a video •  Conduct a preference assessment •  Interpret the outcome 6 Se^ing and Materials •  Se^ing –  Observation rooms •  Two-‐‑way mirror •  Table and chairs •  Materials –  All necessary items for a PS preference assessment •  Data sheet/Pencil •  8 edible items •  Lap top with training video 7 Study 1: Method •  Design –  Multiple baseline across participants •  Baseline –  Wri^en instructions based on method section (Fisher et al., 1992) •  Intervention –  Video Study 1 8 Intervention •  Video (wri^en instructions, voice-‐‑over, models, rehearsal) Study 1 9 Dependent Variables •  Percentage of correct responses conducting a paired – stimulus preference assessment •  Mastery Criteria –  90% or above accuracy across 2 consecutive sessions •  IOA –  Trial-‐‑by-‐‑trial IOA = 96% 10 Remove unselected stimuli Simulated Client 11 Blocking Simulated Client 12 Scoring and Interpreting Outcomes •  Scoring and interpreting outcomes –  Given a data sheet pre and post intervention •  Generate Preference Hierarchies –  Obtain percentage of selection for each item –  Identiﬁed item most often selected 13 Participants •  4 undergraduate students •  Age 23-‐‑27 years old •  No formal training Study 1 14 Results: Implementation Baseline Video Training Baseline Olive Paula Study 1 Video Training Claire Helena 15 Percentage of Participants Correct Response Results: Identifying Preference 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% Pre 40% Post 30% 20% 10% 0% Study 1 Scoring Interpreting 16 Study 2: Component Analysis of Video •  Unclear what components are necessary for a video to be eﬀective Study 2 17 Purpose •  Study 2 •  Determine which components in the video were necessary for participants to meet mastery Study 2 18 Participants •  8 undergraduate students –  Age: 23-‐‑27 years old –  No formal Training Study 2 19 Method •  Dependent Variable –  Percentage of correct steps implemented when conducting a PS preference assessment •  Mastery Criteria –  90% or above accuracy across 2 consecutive sessions for three participants •  IOA •  Trail-‐‑by-‐‑trail IOA -‐‑92% Study 2 20 Procedures •  Design –  Multiple Baseline across participants for each component •  Baseline –  Identical to Study 1 •  Intervention –  Phase 1 = Wri^en instructions + •  Voice-‐‑over, models, rehearsal, models + voiceover –  Phase 2 = Full video from Study 1 Study 2 21 Wri^en Instructions + Video Models BL Video Models BLVM V Jen Full Video BLVRFull Video Fran Full Video BL VV Full Video 2nd viewing of video Bill Study 2 Session 22 Wri^en Instruction + Video Models + Voiceover (WMV) WMV 2nd viewing of video BLVRFull Video BL Study 2 VV Full Video 23 Wri^en Instruction + Video Rehearsal (WR) WR Session Study 2 24 Wri^en Instruction + Voiceover (WV) WV 2nd viewing of video Tilda Session Study 2 25 Summary •  Video can be used to train –  Implementation –  Scoring Data –  Interpreting Outcomes •  Identiﬁed components of video –  Wri^en instruction –  Models –  Voiceover –  Rehearsal 26 Discussion •  Implications –  Less resource intensive solution for eﬀective training –  Guidelines for development of videos –  Maximize supervisor time •  Future Research –  Social Validity –  Generalization –  Maintenance –  Evaluate performance under various conditions 27 Selected References DeLeon, I. G., & Iwata, B. A. (1996). Evaluation of a multiple-‐‑stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 519–533. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-‐‑519 Lavie, T., & Sturmey, P. (2002). Training staﬀ to conduct a paired-‐‑stimulus preference assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35(2), 209–211. Piazza, C. C., Fisher, W. W., Hagopian, L. P., Bowman, L. G., & Toole, L. (1996). Using a choice assessment to predict reinforcer eﬀectiveness. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 1–9. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-‐‑1 Rosales, R., Gongola, L., & Homlitas, C. (2015). An evaluation of video modeling with embedded instructions to teach implementation of stimulus preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48, 1–6. doi: 10.1002/jaba.174 Roscoe, E. M., & Fisher, W. W. (2008). Evaluation of an eﬃcient method for training staﬀ to implement stimulus preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41, 249–254. doi: 10.1901/jaba.2008.41-‐‑249 Weldy, C. R., Rapp, J. T., & Capocasa, K. (2014). Training staﬀ to implement brief stimulus preference assessments: preference assessments and staﬀ training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47, 214–218. doi:10.1002/jaba.98 28