# data[].attributes.body
Strengths:

Tells you items/activities that may function as reinforcers

Some PAs can demonstrate a preference hierarchy

Lots of options to tailor to specific needs

Can be indirect or direct!

Drawbacks/Limitations:

Preferences can shift quickly

Items that are identified as preferred are not guaranteed to be reinforcers

Best fit:

Any learner! Typically done at intake, but should be repeated quarterly (or so) to account for preference changes

# data[].attributes.body
Strengths:

Tells you how well a child “fits” with classroom activities, routines, and expectations

Points to functional skill(s) needed for participation and potential new goals

Done in-school

Drawbacks/Limitations:

Relies heavily on teacher report (i.e., their observation, judgment, and skill level)

Context-specific --> may not be generalizable

Best Fit:

Toddlers, preschoolers, and/or elementary students

# data[].attributes.headline
Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (3rd ed.)

# data[].attributes.subject
Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (3rd ed.)

# data[].attributes.body
Strengths

Provides information on adaptive functioning (i.e., communication, daily living, socialization, and motor skills)

Norm-referenced

Drawbacks/Limitations

Standardized interviews or questionnaires (caregiver or teacher input)

Relies on caregiver report (possible bias)

May not reflect performance in all environments

Focuses on global adaptive skills, not specific instructional targets

Best Fit

Any age (birth-90 years old)

A learner being evaluated for special education or clinical eligibility

# data[].attributes.body
Strengths

Provides information on essential, communication, self-help, and safety skills

Prioritizes “must-have” skills (e.g., requesting help, tolerating delays)

Criterion-referenced

Drawbacks/Limitations

Caregiver/teacher input --> may be biased

Focused on functional repertoires or what are considered pivotal skills for that learner to be independent (i.e., less breadth in academics)

Requires training for proper use

Best Fit

Learners with severe disabilities, limited communication, and/or profound developmental delays

Individuals with limited functional communication

Also tends to be helpful for older adult learners

# data[].attributes.headline
Assessment of Functional Living Skills (AFLS)

# data[].attributes.subject
Assessment of Functional Living Skills (AFLS)

# data[].attributes.body
Strengths:

Assesses functional, adaptive, and life skills

Tells you readiness for independence

Provides insight for transition planning, functional programming, or vocation preparation

Drawbacks/Limitations:

Not norm-referenced --> can’t compare to peers

Requires ecological context to be meaningful

Best Fit:

Older children, adolescents, and adults with developmental disabilities

# data[].attributes.headline
Assessment of Basic Language and Learning Skills – Revised (ABLLS-R)

# data[].attributes.subject
Assessment of Basic Language and Learning Skills – Revised (ABLLS-R)

# data[].attributes.body
Strengths:

Tells you a range of language, academic, self-help, and motor skills

Task analysis of over 500 skills

Combination of direct assessment and caregiver/teacher input

Drawbacks/Limitations:

Broad coverage but shallow in some domains that it is targeting

Less validated psychometrically than some other tools

Best Fit:

Learners at early skill acquisition stages

# data[].attributes.headline
Verbal Behavior Milestones Placement & Program (VB-MAPP)

# data[].attributes.subject
Verbal Behavior Milestones Placement & Program (VB-MAPP)

# data[].attributes.body
Strengths

Provides information on a learner's language, learning, and social milestones across development

Provides information on a learner's barriers to learning

Provides a learner's transition readiness

Criterion-referenced --> can compare to peers

Direct testing and observation

Organized into domains (mand, tact, listener, play, social, group, etc.)

Drawbacks/Limitations

Focuses more on verbal behavior and less on daily living/vocational skills

Caregiver/teacher report --> may lead to bias

Time-consuming for full admin (e.g., 4+ hours)

Best Fit

Ages 2-6 years old

# data[].attributes.body
Strengths:

Tells you child functioning across everyday routines

Tells you caregiver concerns, priorities, and context for intervention

Interview is semi-structured

Drawbacks/Limitations:

Relies on caregiver reporting (not direct observation)

Requires interviewer skill to avoid bias

Less suited for older learners

Less suited for independent goal selection

Best Fit:

Young children (0-5) with developmental delays or disabilities

Learners where family involvement and context are central

# data[].attributes.body
Strengths

Allows a teacher/therapist to create a hierarchy of the learner's preferences

As thorough as MSWs or MSWOs

Drawbacks/Limitations

Time-consuming

Not appropriate for learners who engage in problem behavior when preferred items are taken away

Best Fit

Learners who are able to choose highly-preferred items over low-preferred items without displaying side-bias

Learners who are unable to scan more than two items on a surface

# data[].attributes.body
Strengths

Helpful if the therapist already knows or has an understanding of the types of items the learner likes and dislikes

Learners are allowed to continue engaging with toys until they choose to stop or give them up --> helpful if the learner engages in problem behavior when items are removed

Drawbacks/Limitations

Time-consuming

MSWOs, MSWs, and Paired Stimulus Preference Assessments may be more efficient and accurate

Best Fit

Learners who are unable to scan a field of two items

Learners who are unable to select an item without choosing the same side (i.e., who display side bias)

Learners who engage in challenging behavior when preferred toys are taken away

# data[].attributes.body
Strengths:

Relatively simple to implement

Observer may discover preferred actions or activities that would not have been considered otherwise

Preferred items are never removed -> learner is less likely to engage in challenging behavior

Can server as a preliminary preference assessment

Can be naturalistic or contrived

Drawbacks/Limitations:

Less accurate at determining preferences

Learner may select multiple items at once

Not the best to establish a hierarchy

Best Fit:

Learners who may engage in challenging behavior if preferred items are removed

Learners whom the teacher/researcher/therapist is unfamiliar with

# data[].attributes.headline
Multiple Stimulus With Replacement (MSW)

# data[].attributes.subject
Multiple Stimulus With Replacement (MSW)

# data[].attributes.body
Strengths

Helpful if the therapist already knows or has an understanding of the types of items the learner likes and dislikes

Learners are allowed to continue engaging with toys until they choose to stop or give them up --> helpful if the learner engages in problem behavior when items are removed

Drawbacks/Limitations

Time-consuming

MSWOs, MSWs, and Paired Stimulus Preference Assessments may be more efficient and accurate

Best Fit

Learners who are unable to scan a field of two items

Learners who are unable to select an item without choosing the same side (i.e., who display side bias)

Learners who engage in challenging behavior when preferred toys are taken away

# data[].attributes.body
Strengths:

Can be used to gather background information on the learner’s preferences prior to an intake session or a directly-observed PA

Drawbacks/Limitations:

Not direct observation— have to rely on caregivers for information (they could be biased)

Best fit:

Any and all learners (especially those who are new to the researcher!)

# data[].attributes.headline
Multiple Stimulus Without Replacement (MSWO)

# data[].attributes.subject
Multiple Stimulus Without Replacement (MSWO)

# data[].attributes.body
Strengths:

Can be used to create a hierarchy of the learner’s preferences in a short amount of time

Drawbacks//Limitations:

Should not be used with a learner who engages in problem behavior when a preferred item is removed or has difficulty choosing between three or more items

Best Fit:

A learner who is unlikely to engage in problem behavior when a preferred item is removed, can choose items, scan more than two items on a surface, and does not demonstrate a side bias