• 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

• 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

  
  

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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
  

• 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

• 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

• 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

  
  

• 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

• 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!)

• 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