Page 1

Amanda Ripley, MS BCBA Imagine! Behavioral Health Services Paula K. Davis, Ph.D. Southern Illinois University


`

2008: 38.7 million adults 65 and older

`

By 2050: 88.5 million adults 65 and older

`

By 2030: 1 in 5 Americans will be 80 and older


`

AD: cognitive disturbance and decline of memory

`

PLOOLRQ$PHULFDQ路V

`

Current: 71 seconds

`

By 2050: 33 seconds

`

Make up 47% of residents of nursing home


`

Activities

Ń Choice and Variety (Logsdon, 2000) Ń Purposeful Activities (Basler, 2005) Ń Ethical Obligations (Skinner, 1969)

`

Preference Assessments

Ń Type (MSWO, paired-choice) Ń Format (tangible, pictorial) Ń Physical (reach, vision)


` `

`

Compared Tangible and Pictorial Formats Results: 5/7 did not show consistent preferences across the two formats Conclusion: preference assessments are affected by presentation format


`

Compared choice formats to engagement Ń Pictorial, Tangible, Verbal, Textual

`

`

Results: tangible and verbal were predictive of engagement Conclusion: implications for clinicians who need assessment that are quick and yield predictive results


`

`

Evaluate the consistency of preferences across presentation formats Evaluate preferences between productive and leisure activities


` ` `

` ` `

3 Females 76 to 88 years old MMSE:11 to 20 ADL dependent All participants made a choice between pairs $O]KHLPHU路V6&8


`

` `

12 activities were chosen from a list provided E\WKH$O]KHLPHU路V$VVRFLDWLRQ(Burket, 2008) 6 Leisure Activities 6 Productive Activities


`

4 Preference Assessments were conducted: Ń Informal (Questionnaire) Ń Tangible Paired-Choice Ń Verbal Paired-Choice Ń Single Stimulus Engagement


` `

`

,QVWUXFWLRQ´'R\RXOLNH>$FWLYLW\$@"µ Each activity was asked 1 time Response Measurement:

Ń Preferred: confirming statement (yes, sure) Ń Not Preferred: declining statement (no, nope)


`

,QVWUXFWLRQ´:RXOG\RXUDWKHU>$FWLYLW\$@RU >$FWLYLW\%@µ Ń Verbal: Question only Ń Tangible: Question and Item Presented

` `

1 minute contingent access to activity Response Measurement:

Ń Verbal: Participant said name of item Ń Tangible: Participant said name of, approached, or touched item

`

Scheduled Breaks (every 20 minutes)


`

` `

,QVWUXFWLRQ´7KLVLV>DFWLYLW\@<RXPD\ [activity] for up to 30 minutes while I do some ZRUN<RXFDQVWDUWZKHQHYHU\RXZRXOGOLNHµ 30 minute access Response Measurement: Ń Engaged: actively manipulating the item and/or looking at the materials without sleeping (i.e., shutting eyes for more than one second)

`

10s Whole Interval Recording


` `

`

Taken 33% of Sessions Treatment Integrity: 100% for all sessions Interobserver Agreement Ń Ń Ń Ń

Informal: 100% Verbal: 98% - 100% Tangible: 97% - 100% SSE: 98%-99%


`

`

`

` `

Informal and systematic assessment not comparable

Significant correlation / similar hierarchies between tangible and verbal No significant correlation for SSE and other assessments Highest Engagement: first 10 minute block Preferred both Leisure and Productive Activities


`

Choice and Variety are important

`

Length of Activities

`

Stimulus Control issues


`

Activities based upon previous life roles Ń Evaluate individualized activities vs. generic activities?

`

Attrition Rates

Ń Will other different types / formats avoid attrition rates?


Thank you! Email: aripley@imaginecolorado.org

Ripley 2011 Evaluation of Pref Formats  

An aging presentation at the 37th Annual Association for Behavior Analysis International Conference in Denver, CO .

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you