View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Incorporating Choice-Making Opportunities to Increase Engagement in Leisure Activities for Adults with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Incorporating Choice-Making Opportunities to Increase Engagement in Leisure Activities for Adults with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
Language: English
Authors: Casey J. Clay (ORCID 0000-0002-6268-6779), Nelungwe Chuunga, Karen V. O'Connor, SungWoo Kahng
Source: Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities. 2024 36(2):329-344.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Decision Making, Leisure Time, Recreational Activities, Adults, Intellectual Disability, Developmental Disabilities, Day Programs, Preferences, Opportunities
DOI: 10.1007/s10882-023-09909-5
ISSN: 1056-263X
1573-3580
Abstract: A growing number of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) attend day programming. These programs are designed to give consumers the opportunity to explore the community, socialize with community members, and to engage in community activities. Unfortunately, activities offered may be selected by program staff without much input from the day program participants. Researchers examined the use of video-based paired stimulus preference assessments (VPA) to identify potentially preferred activities for three adults with IDD in a day program setting. Participant engagement levels during identified preferred activities were compared with staff-selected activities. Consistent with previous research, researchers were able to identify a hierarchy of preferred activities using the VPA. Researchers found preferred activities identified by the VPA maintained more engagement than staff-selected activities for all three participants. Our findings suggest VPA may be beneficial to incorporate into daily activity planning for adults with IDD in day programs.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1430928
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFNAkzZW3c320hEXDT0XsnhAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCeak96CRiGByXLklAIBEICBm-u15JjkkAodpkJf6LgupQ2xL6_xgkYoWEjvWHI6TGdey8XfJnPBRB5bW9UKvSlmPnpr9TUnGZagFBBNJfPDS3GxfBfnrlWQZWG2m7gl_VjLOhtRQh2yRmVNxwuVcingxrJ_X13LAXiXy1Yxkc9p1DZ8QJBBtuD4sMZ-QjhaPsHmL52A_HwFXI7S9FnjqdsEpked6J-S0IllxY_0
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0176384061;jdp01apr.24;2024Apr04.04:40;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0176384061-1">Incorporating Choice-Making Opportunities to Increase Engagement in Leisure Activities for Adults with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities </title> <p>A growing number of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) attend day programming. These programs are designed to give consumers the opportunity to explore the community, socialize with community members, and to engage in community activities. Unfortunately, activities offered may be selected by program staff without much input from the day program participants. Researchers examined the use of video-based paired stimulus preference assessments (VPA) to identify potentially preferred activities for three adults with IDD in a day program setting. Participant engagement levels during identified preferred activities were compared with staff-selected activities. Consistent with previous research, researchers were able to identify a hierarchy of preferred activities using the VPA. Researchers found preferred activities identified by the VPA maintained more engagement than staff-selected activities for all three participants. Our findings suggest VPA may be beneficial to incorporate into daily activity planning for adults with IDD in day programs.</p> <p>Keywords: Adults; Choice; Developmental disability; Intellectual disability; Preference assessment</p> <p>This study was conducted in partial fulfillment of the second author's requirements for the Master's degree in Applied Behavior Analysis at University of Missouri.</p> <hd id="AN0176384061-2">Using Choice-Making Opportunities to Increase Engagement in Leisure Activities for Adults wit...</hd> <p>There are approximately 6.5 million people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) living in the United States (Peacock, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref1">39</reflink>]). In 1999, a landmark Supreme Court ruling directed that people with disabilities have the right to receive state-funded support and services in the community rather than in institutions when these services are appropriate (Olmstead v. L.C., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref2">36</reflink>]). This ruling resulted in an increase in the number of adults receiving community-based services and living in a community setting. Despite community living and a desire to make choices, studies show that these adults are given few opportunities to make even the most basic types of choices in their daily lives (Bigby et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref3">2</reflink>]; Gadd, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref4">21</reflink>]; Parsons et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref5">38</reflink>]; Stancliffe et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref6">45</reflink>]).</p> <p>One approach that may address limited choice making for clients with disabilities could be the inclusion of Person-Centered Planning (PCP). PCP is a process that directly involves a person with a disability along with their family, friends, and supporting personnel to collaborate and develop a profile of the client to guide goals and services (Wells & Sheehey, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref7">50</reflink>]). The goals of PCP are to develop collaborative, goal-oriented, and individualized programs that are focused on community presence, community participation, positive relationships, respect, and competence (Claes et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref8">11</reflink>]; Wells & Sheehey, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref9">50</reflink>]). The use of the PCP process has been shown to lead to improvements in lifestyle-related outcomes for some people with intellectual disabilities (Lawlor et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref10">29</reflink>]; Robertson et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref11">41</reflink>]).</p> <p>Many clients with IDD who receive residential habilitation services have an Individual Support Plan (ISP) and review it with a team that meets annually. This meeting is conducted to determine whether the consumer is content with their living situation, identify their employment goals, and what changes they would like to see in the upcoming year. The consumers are given the opportunity to discuss desired changes to their living situation, employment opportunities, and should also include a focus on leisure activities (Hanzen et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref12">25</reflink>]; Sigafoos et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref13">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>One way of including individuals with IDD in the process of selecting leisure activities is by providing choices of activities in which they have an interest, and then providing the opportunity for them to decide which of these activities they want to participate in, and how often (Schwartz et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref14">42</reflink>]). Studies have also emphasized the importance of choice making for adults with disabilities (Mehling & Tassé, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref15">32</reflink>]) as well as increased engagement as a result of choice making (deVries et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref16">17</reflink>]; Lancioni et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref17">28</reflink>]), improved choice making skills (Parsons et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref18">37</reflink>]; Sparks, et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref19">52</reflink>]), decreased problem behavior, and enhanced quality of life (Bush & Tassé, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref20">8</reflink>]; Canella et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref21">9</reflink>]).</p> <p>Previous studies have used both indirect and direct measures to determine preference (Cote et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref22">14</reflink>]; Graff & Karsten, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref23">22</reflink>]). Indirect measures include caregiver surveys and client interviews. Indirect measures are often chosen because they are easier to implement than direct measures and can be successfully implemented in settings that have limited resources (Hagopian et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref24">24</reflink>]). Direct assessments systematically expose the clients to various stimuli while recording their response (Hagopian et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref25">24</reflink>]). Direct measures may be more appropriate for adults with disabilities who lack or have lost a vocal repertoire to report preferences (Feliciano et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref26">18</reflink>]). Two commonly conducted direct preference assessments are paired-stimulus (PS) procedures and multiple-stimulus without replacement (MSWO; DeLeon & Iwata [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref27">16</reflink>]). In PS procedures, two stimuli are presented at a time in a random order to participants to generate a ranking of choices indicating potential preferences for the presented stimuli (e.g., Ciccone et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref28">10</reflink>]). Within an MSWO preference assessment, the number of stimuli presented increases from two to between six and eight options in the initial array. In an MSWO, clients first select one item out of the presented array. The item is then removed from the options and the reduced array is re-presented until the rank order is established (e.g., Tullis et al., [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref29">48</reflink>]).</p> <p>When deciding the type of preference assessment to use (e.g., indirect, direct), and how to implement the assessment, consideration should be given to the resources available in the setting, the types of stimuli being examined, and the participants involved (i.e., level of support needed, as well as any physical or visual impairments; Buchmeier et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref30">6</reflink>]; Cote et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref31">14</reflink>]; Thompson et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref32">46</reflink>]). Given the nature of some stimuli (i.e., size, intangible social interactions), they cannot be included in standard direct preference assessments where tangible items are readily accessible and presented to the client (Clay et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref33">13</reflink>]; Kelly et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref34">27</reflink>]; Morris & Vollmer, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref35">33</reflink>]). The use of pictorial representations of stimuli for preference assessment has been identified as potentially effective for children and adults with disabilities and/or communication limitations (LeBlanc et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref36">30</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref37">31</reflink>]; Nuernberger et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref38">35</reflink>]). Previous researchers have also examined the use of video representations (Brodhead & Rispoli, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref39">3</reflink>]; Clark et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref40">12</reflink>]; Curiel et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref41">15</reflink>]; Snyder et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref42">44</reflink>]) of items/activities during preference assessments. Video preference assessments (VPA) involve presentation of stimuli delivered in a recorded video format to be viewed on a variety of devices with a display screen (Brodhead & Rispoli, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref43">3</reflink>]; Clark et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref44">12</reflink>]; Curiel et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref45">15</reflink>]; Snyder et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref46">44</reflink>]; Wolfe et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref47">51</reflink>]).</p> <p>Snyder and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref48">44</reflink>]) examined the use of a video-based stimulus presentation as an alternative to the standard direct preference assessment delivery. Participants in this study were six children, ages 3 to 5, and diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The participants were presented with two video clips of potential reinforcers on two separate DVD players. The video clips used were of an unfamiliar child playing with the offered stimulus item with views of the child and the item, as well as a child's point of view with the stimuli. Participants were provided with sets of two paired-stimulus assessments (one video-based and one tangible-based). Both forms of assessments included 30 total trials with each stimulus presented during 10 trials. The order of the assessments was counterbalanced across participants. The highest- and lowest-ranked stimuli were found to correspond between the two assessments for most participants, suggesting that VPA might be just as accurate as tangible preference assessments at identifying potential reinforcers.</p> <p>Clark et al. ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref49">12</reflink>]) extended the results of Snyder et al. ([<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref50">44</reflink>]) by examining if a VPA would identify stimuli that would function as reinforcers in a later reinforcer assessment for four children (ages 9–11) with autism. The study procedures included both a tangible paired-stimulus preference assessment and a paired-stimulus VPA. The VPA was conducted using 30-s video clips of stimuli presented on one of two devices with counterbalanced presentation. During the VPA, the selected stimulus was not delivered after selection unlike in the tangible preference assessment. Based on the results of the preference assessments stimuli were classified as high, moderate, and less preferred. Within the reinforcer assessment, stimuli from the tangible preference assessment were compared to the VPA. The researchers of this study found that for three of the four participants, the no access VPA successfully identified stimuli that may serve as reinforcers. These results extend the literature relating to the utility of using VPAs as a method to identify preferred stimuli and support that immediate access to stimuli during a preference assessment may not be necessary.</p> <p>To compare video-based MSWO preference assessments with tangible MSWO assessments, Brodhead and Rispoli ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref51">3</reflink>]) conducted both methods to evaluate the responses of children with autism to novel stimuli. The three participants in this study (children with autism ages 6 and 7) were presented with a video-based preference assessment with no access to the stimuli, then presented with the tangible format, followed by a second presentation of the video-based preference assessment. The results of this study indicated that the video-based preference assessment was strongly correlated with the tangible-based preference assessment for novel stimuli. Additionally, the study extended previous literature that supports the use of video-based preference assessments without access to stimuli.</p> <p>Given the utility of VPA in the previous research with children with disabilities, the current study sought to extend research on the use of VPA in the adult services environment. The purpose of the current study is to systematically replicate previous research using VPA and to evaluate whether adults with IDD in a day program are more likely to engage in their highest-preferred leisure activity compared to the routinely offered activities selected by staff at their day program.</p> <hd id="AN0176384061-3">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0176384061-4">Participants and Setting</hd> <p>Participants were three adults with IDD receiving services at an adult day program. Julia was a 30-year-old white female diagnosed with pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified. Kathy was a 46-year-old white female diagnosed with Down syndrome. Erma was a 68-year-old white female diagnosed with moderate IDD, bipolar disorder, and renal failure for which she received dialysis three times a week. All participants had vocal verbal repertoires and participated in casual conversations. Staff reported that each of the participants could state and make choices about the leisure activities offered through the program. In order to be included in the study, participants had to (a) have low engagement in leisure activities, (b) be able to make choices, and (c) vocally or gesturally signal their choice. Participants had to attend the day program at least three days a week and could not have any scheduled medical procedures or planned vacations that would impact attendance for the duration of the study.</p> <p>The study was conducted at a day program for adults with IDD. The day program provided leisure activities and medical services for consumers with IDD who received residential habilitation services. Each day, attendees were offered various group activities at the center, as well as opportunities to participate in pre-arranged community outings. Staff-selected scheduled activities were posted on a board at the front of the activity room and the time of day that they are offered was indicated. Community outings were scheduled by the day program staff one month in advance, and the program attendees did not have a choice in when these activities were scheduled.</p> <hd id="AN0176384061-5">Dependent Measures and Interobserver Agreement</hd> <p>Data were collected by the second author and a trained program staff member. During the VPA, the observer collected data on selection, which was defined as either pointing to a video or saying the name of the activity. Data were collected on the frequency of selections and converted to a percentage of opportunities. Selections were converted to percentages by calculating the percent of trials in which a particular activity was chosen and divided by the trials in which it was offered, this number was then multiplied by 100. During the engagement assessment, the observer collected data on engagement, which was defined as attending to (i.e., direction of eye gaze directed at the stimulus) or manipulating the item for at least 5 s, using 30-s partial-interval recording. A 30-s partial interval recording method was used based on the current environment with consideration for feasibility for staff implementation and fidelity. For Kathy's Exercise Videos, engagement was defined as actively watching the video with her eyes directed at the television screen for at least 5 s. That is, we did not score large motor movement or exercising as part of engagement as might typically occur during this activity.</p> <p>During the preference assessment, a second observer scored 61% of the trials. Interobserver agreement (IOA) was calculated by dividing agreements by agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 100. Agreement was defined as both observers marking the same selection on the data sheets (i.e., agreeing which activity was selected, or agreeing that there was no selection made). Overall agreement for the preference assessments was 100%.</p> <p>A second observer collected data during 38% of the sessions in the engagement assessment for Julia and Erma, and 43% of the sessions for Kathy. IOA was calculated by dividing agreements by agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 100. Each interval was scored as an agreement if both observers scored the interval the same. Agreement across participants averaged 93% (range, 80–100%).</p> <hd id="AN0176384061-6">Preference Assessment</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0176384061-7">Interviews</hd> <p>Interviews were conducted with direct care staff and participants to generate activities for the preference assessments. Interviews included informal questions about leisure activities preferred by the participant and the conditions under which the activities are preferred (e.g., coloring with crayons or reading books on specific topics). We conducted the Reinforcer Assessment for Individuals with Severe Disabilities (RAISD; Fisher et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref52">20</reflink>]) with staff and participants, but added minor modifications. That is, for participants we changed wording to the second person perspective in the questions (e.g., "Does she prefer..." to "Do you prefer...") to be directed at the participant. The participants' answers to the questions from the RAISD were inconsistent, and somewhat vague (e.g., off topic responses, responding with the same response to multiple questions). Despite repeating questions and asking for clarification we were unsure if responses were reliable and valid due to limited receptive and expressive vocal verbal repertoires. Therefore, more weight was given to answers given by the direct support staff. Researchers reviewed the interviews and identified the following activities for the preference assessments. For Julia, Facebook, listening to music, coloring, and mall walking were identified. For Kathy, watching exercise videos, painting watercolors, mall walking, Uno, reading, and arts and crafts were identified. For Erma, wheelchair exercises, reading books about birds, planting flowers, reading books about flowers, finger painting, making collage books, painting pictures, and drawing sunsets were identified.</p> <hd id="AN0176384061-8">Video Preference Assessment</hd> <p>Activities identified as preferred by the participants from the interviews given to staff were used for the assessment in a paired-stimulus preference assessment using a similar procedure from Fisher et al. ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref53">19</reflink>]). Each stimulus was paired with every other stimulus in random order and presented to the participant until all possible combinations had been presented and position (i.e., left or right) of the video stimuli were counterbalanced across presentations. Julia was presented with a total of 12 selection opportunities. Kathy was presented with a total of 30 selection opportunities. Erma was presented with a total of 56 selection opportunities. Stimuli were presented in video modalities with vocal instructions from the researcher given at the time of presentation similar to Clark et al. ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref54">12</reflink>]). Videos were selected from YouTube (if an activity was not easily accessible) or a recorded video of the participant engaging in the activity was used. Two iPads were placed on a table in front of the participant. Each iPad had a video representation of an activity identified from the interviews. At the start of the session the researcher gave a vocal instruction saying "This is a video of (name of activity). Watch this." Then they would play the first video (e.g., activity A) for approximately 15 s, following which they would give the same instructions then immediately play the second video (e.g., activity B) for approximately 15 s. The videos were then played simultaneously while asking the participant to choose between activity A or activity B, and the participant was given 5 s to make a selection (e.g., "This is a video of [activity A], this is a video of [activity B]. Pick one you would like to do"). After selection, the trial was terminated, and the participant was not given access to the chosen activity. The next two videos were then presented, and the next trial was started. If no selection was made in 5 s, the trial was terminated, and the next pair of videos was presented (this only happened during one trial with Kathy, and likely had little implications on the overall results of the study as the choice was between less preferred stimuli). The position of the first video was alternated from one trial to the next. Selections from the preference assessment were then ranked in order based on percentage of selections from highly preferred to low preferred. The highest preferred activity was used for the engagement assessment.</p> <hd id="AN0176384061-9">Engagement Assessment</hd> <p>Sessions were 15 min, and between two and four sessions were conducted each day. The order of the conditions was determined ahead of time with staff-selected activity being presented first and then alternating between staff-selected and participant-selected. The conditions were compared in an alternating treatment design. Erma suffered from renal failure which caused her to become easily exhausted toward the end of the session. Her sessions were shortened to 10 min to avoid fatigue.</p> <hd id="AN0176384061-10">Staff-Selected Activity</hd> <p>During the staff-selected activity condition, the participant was not guided to any specific activity, but was allowed to participate in the regularly scheduled day program leisure activity in that time slot, which was selected by staff. All daily activities were written on a board at the front of the program room along with the time slot in which they were offered. At the start of this condition, the researcher took the participant to the board and pointed out the time and corresponding activity. The researcher then said to the participant, "You can do the activity on the board for as long as you like." Daily activities offered included karaoke, playing board games, quilting, and playing card games. The researcher then took data on engagement with the scheduled activity and stopped the participant at the end of session.</p> <hd id="AN0176384061-11">Participant-Selected Activity</hd> <p>At the start of the participant-selected activity condition, the highest preferred activity was presented to the participant, and the researcher said, "Here is [activity], you can do it for as long as you want." The activity was then left in front of the participant. In the case of the Exercise Videos, the participant was directed to a television and the video was set up. The researcher played the video and instructed the participant that they could exercise for as long as they wanted. The researcher stopped the participant at the end of the session.</p> <hd id="AN0176384061-12">Results</hd> <p>The results of the preference assessments are shown in Fig. 1. Julia's highest-preferred activity was Facebook, and percentage of selections are as follows, respectively, Facebook (100%), Coloring (33%), Music (33%), and Mall Walk (33%). Kathy's highest-preferred activity was the exercise videos, and her percentage of selections are as follows, respectively, Exercise Video (80%), Watercolors (60%), Mall Walk (60%), Reading (40%), Uno (20%), and Arts and Crafts (20%). Erma's highest-preferred activity was the Wheelchair exercises, and her percentage of selections are as follows, respectively, Wheelchair Exercises (100%), Finger-painting (71%), Collage (57%), Paint Pictures (57%), Draw Sunset (57%), Flower Book (43%), Bird Book (14%), and Plant Flowers (0%).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Note. Results for all participant's preference assessments. Results show the percentage of presentation trials in which each item was selected</p> <p>The results of the engagement assessment are shown in Fig. 2. Julia engaged with her highest-preferred activity in 100% of the intervals during the engagement assessment. Engagement in staff-selected activities were much lower across sessions with a mean of 53% engagement (range, 25-73%). Kathy's engagement in both the staff-selected and the participant-selected conditions was variable and undifferentiated in the first seven sessions, but engagement with her preferred activity increased to a higher level and became stable. Mean engagement in the participant-selected condition was 74% (range, 23-100%). Mean engagement in the staff-selected activity was 41% (range, 20-70%). Responding in the staff-selected activity decreased to a lower level on a decreasing trend. Erma's levels of engagement in both activities were low during 15 min sessions. During 10 min sessions, the level of engagement in her highest-preferred activity was high and stable with a mean engagement of 89% (range, 80-90%). A lower level of engagement in the staff-selected activity condition was seen with a mean of 30% (range, 20-40%).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Note. Results of the engagement assessment showing sessions and the percentage engagement between the regularly scheduled activity (Staff Selected) and the highest-preferred activity (Participant Selected)</p> <hd id="AN0176384061-13">Discussion</hd> <p>Researchers evaluated the utility of VPA for adults with IDD to examine whether adults with IDD are more likely to engage in their highest-preferred leisure activity compared to activities that have been selected by staff. We found that the use of a VPA without immediate access to the chosen stimuli was an effective method of identifying highly preferred activities for all three participants. Furthermore, we found participant-selected activities were more effective at increasing engagement than staff-selected activities. The results of the study suggest that adults with disabilities were more likely to engage in activities that they prefer relative to activities staff selected for them.</p> <p>These results are also consistent with the findings of Clark et al. ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref55">12</reflink>]) who found the use of a VPA without immediate access to the selected stimuli appeared to be an effective method of selecting highly preferred activities. Additionally, the results of this study extend Brodhead et al. ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref56">4</reflink>]) demonstrating the utility of VPA to identify preferences when presented with novel stimuli. Our data extend this finding to adults with disabilities when conducting a VPA in a paired-stimulus format. To our knowledge, there have not been published outcomes of VPA delivered in a paired-stimulus format assessing leisure stimuli involving adults with IDD.</p> <p>Our results are also broadly consistent with findings of studies in which researchers compared how well stimuli maintained responding following different assessment methods for identifying preferred stimuli (i.e., direct vs. indirect) for individuals with disabilities across different respondents. That is, previous researchers have compared participant-selected versus another individual (i.e., caregiver, staff, teachers) nominating or selecting putative preferred and reinforcing stimuli. Researchers have reported stimuli identified as high-preferred when individuals themselves are selecting are generally more reinforcing and maintain more responding than stimuli that are selected or nominated by others (Cote et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref57">14</reflink>]; Green et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref58">23</reflink>]). Furthermore, there is recent evidence to suggest that clinician-reported preferences of children with a developmental disability are positively correlated with reinforcer assessment hierarchies; however, the strength of the correlation is highly variable (Morris & Vollmer, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref59">34</reflink>]). Morris and Vollmer concluded clinician report may not be a sufficiently valid method for identifying the most efficacious reinforcers. Future researchers should also examine this relationship with adults across distinct types of stimuli.</p> <p>The results of the current study are socially relevant because low levels of engagement in functional activities have been noted in clients with IDD residing in residential facilities (Buchmeier et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref60">6</reflink>]). Although previous researchers have suggested an MSWO be conducted first when assessing preferences of adults with developmental disabilities (Buchmeier et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref61">6</reflink>]), we decided to begin with a paired-stimulus format based on previous research involving VPA. Furthermore, conducting traditional tangible-based preference assessments in a multiple stimulus arrangement when working with older adults with IDD might be challenging due to age related health changes (e.g., vision loss, hearing loss, limited movement; Buchmeier et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref62">6</reflink>]).</p> <p>The results of this study may support the following considerations for professionals working with adult consumers in day programming. First, direct care staff could consider incorporating choice into leisure time by offering a choice of activities to consumers as opposed to the staff-selected scheduled activity. Staff could start by designating certain times of day in which consumers get to choose the activities in which they engage. They could then provide opportunities for each consumer to also participate in selecting group-based leisure activities as well. Second, staff could be trained to use VPA to regularly identify preferred activities, incorporate these each day, and continually monitor client preferences over time. This would potentially provide greater agency to adult consumers with disabilities, enrich the environment at the day program, and may result in higher quality of life. Finally, preference assessments could be integrated into person-centered planning to better identify what is preferred and may lead to increased self-determination for adults with IDD (Buchmeier et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref63">6</reflink>]; Burke et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref64">7</reflink>]; Reid et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref65">40</reflink>]). Previous researchers have also suggested preference assessments be used in including consumers with DD/IDD in transition planning into adulthood to identify preferences for work environments/tasks, social or leisure activities, and living situations (Tullis & Seaman-Tullis, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref66">47</reflink>]). For example, examining preference for work environments where a learner remains in a specific setting for a prolonged period of time. Preference assessments involving videos of these settings for which an individual may choose among these settings may be useful (e.g., Horrocks & Morgan [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref67">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>Although the results of this study may have several benefits, there are a number of limitations that need to be considered. A major limitation of this study was that procedural fidelity data were not collected. Given the recommendation that staff use VPAs to improve the quality of day programming for adults with disabilities, it is essential that future research prioritizes an evaluation of procedural fidelity. Another limitation is we only included participants that had vocal repertoires and were able to make vocal and gestural selections. However, the participants receptive and expressive repertoires were not completely clear given the difficulty we had administering the RAISD to participants. We believed the VPA would be the most effective way to measure preference of activities that were not immediately available to be presented due to researchers' findings that VPA without immediate access to the selected stimuli appeared to be an effective method of selecting highly preferred activities, and videos are substitutable for tangible items or activities they depicted (Brodhead et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref68">5</reflink>]; Clark et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref69">12</reflink>]). The participants were able to successfully complete the VPA without support from staff to clarify their choices. It would be beneficial to examine the use of VPA with adults with less vocal verbal repertoires and those who use augmentative and alternative communication.</p> <p>Another limitation to consider was some of the activities identified by the interviews were not included in the preference assessment or engagement assessment due to their nature and risk factors (e.g., swimming). Other activities were also excluded due to duration and cost that was beyond the scope of the current investigation (e.g., visit to a theme park as staffing ratios did not allow for activities that required 1:1 staffing). Related, we did not assess engagement levels of all activities included in the preference assessment due to limited time constraints associated with day program scheduling.</p> <p>A final limitation is that we did not include a measure of social validity for staff to complete. A social validity measure could provide information regarding the perceptions of staff on the use of VPAs and the utility of these preference assessments within day programs for adults with IDD, and would also satisfy the goals of PCP which are to develop collaborative, goal-oriented, and individualized plans. Additionally, future researchers should more fully include the voices and perspectives of the consumers served. Social validity measures via choice-making and ratings of satisfaction information should also be collected and analyzed to better support those participating in VPA.</p> <p>Continued research is needed to examine the use of VPA for adults with IDD in a variety of settings. Additional studies should be conducted to compare preference assessment results between tangible preference assessments and VPA for this population as has been completed with children (e.g., Brodhead et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref70">4</reflink>]; Clark et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref71">12</reflink>]). When extending the literature in this area, future researchers should consider increasing the range of activities available (e.g., outdoor activities) through this assessment process and ensure consumers can access all possible activities available to them in those settings. Future researchers should also compare engagement with high-, moderate-, and low-preferred activities to evaluate if there is a correlation between preference hierarchy and engagement for adults with IDD. Finally, future research should also include participants with limited to no vocal repertoires and more severe disabilities to identify the most effective modalities of preference assessment for specific repertoires.</p> <p>As our results suggest, VPA may be effective in providing information for and from adults with IDD to be included in their daily activities and overarching ISP planning. This would allow the individuals to have a say in how they spend their leisure time and ensure that the activities they engage in are individualized. Individuals' demonstration of preference is a critical piece to habilitation (Bannerman et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref72">1</reflink>]) and part of an individual's right to a therapeutic environment (Van Houten et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref73">49</reflink>]). Furthermore, conducting preference and reinforcer assessments provides objective measures of individual client responding that may be more reliably reinforcing than staff-selected activities leading to a higher quality of life.</p> <hd id="AN0176384061-14">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0176384061-15">Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals</hd> <p>All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.</p> <hd id="AN0176384061-16">Informed Consent</hd> <p>Informed consent and assent was obtained for all individual participants included in the study.</p> <hd id="AN0176384061-17">Conflict of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0176384061-18">Ethical Approval</hd> <p>This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at University of Missouri.</p> <hd id="AN0176384061-19">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0176384061-20"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref72" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Bannerman DJ, Sheldon JB, Sherman JA, Harchik AE. Balancing the right to habilitation with the right to personal liberties: The rights of people with developmental disabilities to eat too many doughnuts and take a nap. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1990; 23; 1: 79-89. 10.1901/jaba.1990.23-79. 2186017. 1286212</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref3" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bigby C, Whiteside M, Douglas J. Providing support for decision making to adults with intellectual disability: Perspectives of family members and workers in disability support services. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability. 2019; 44; 4: 396-409. 10.3109/13668250.2017.1378873</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref39" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Brodhead MT, Rispoli MJ. Using videos to assess preference for novel stimuli in children with autism. Developmental Neurorehabilitation. 2017; 20: 560-564. 10.1080/17518423.2016.1237583. 27739912</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref56" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Brodhead MT, Abston GW, Mates M, Abel EA. Further refinement of video-based brief multiple‐stimulus without replacement preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2017; 50; 1: 170-175. 10.1002/jaba.358. 27766655</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref68" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Brodhead MT, Kim SY, Rispoli MJ. Further examination of video-based preference assessments without contingent access. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2019; 52; 1: 258-270. 10.1002/jaba.507. 30238441</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref30" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Buchmeier AL, Baker JC, Reuter-Yuill LM, MacNeill BR. Considerations for preference and reinforcer assessments with older adults with developmental disabilities. Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice. 2018; 18; 1: 103. 10.1037/bar0000085</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref64" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Burke KM, Raley SK, Shogren KA, Hagiwara M, Mumbardó-Adam C, Uyanik H, Behrens S. A meta-analysis of interventions to promote self-determination for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education. 2020; 41; 3: 176-188. 10.1177/0741932518802274</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref20" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bush KL, Tassé M. Employment and choice-making for adults with intellectual disability, autism, and down syndrome. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 2017; 65: 23-34. 10.1016/j.ridd.2017.04.004. 28433791</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref21" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Canella HI, O'Reilly MF, Lancioni GE. Choice and preference assessment research with people with severe to profound developmental disabilities: A review of the literature. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 2005; 26: 1-15. 10.1016/j.ridd.2004.01.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ciccone FJ, Graff RB, Ahearn WH. Increasing the efficiency of paired?stimulus preference assessments by identifying categories of preference. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2015; 48; 1: 221-226. 10.1002/jaba.190. 25754896</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Claes C, Van Hove G, Vandevelde S, vanLoon J, Schalock RL. Person-centered planning: Analysis of research and effectiveness. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. 2010; 48: 432-453. 10.1352/1934-9556-48.6.432. 21166549</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clark DR, Donaldson JM, Kahng S. Are video-based preference assessments without access to selected stimuli effective?. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2015; 48: 895-900. 10.1002/jaba.246. 26333156</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clay CJ, Samaha AL, Bloom SE, Bogoev BK, Boyle MA. Assessing preference for social interactions. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 2013; 34; 1: 362-371. 10.1016/j.ridd.2012.07.028. 23009945</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cote CA, Thompson RH, Hanley GP, McKerchar PM. Teacher report and direct assessment for preferences for identifying reinforcers for young children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2007; 40: 157-166. 10.1901/jaba.2007.177-05. 17471799. 1868818</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Curiel H, Curiel ESL, Poling A. Systematic identification of video preference and reinforcers in children with autism. Behavior Analysis Research and Practice. 2021; 21: 118-127. 10.1037/bar0000203</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeLeon IG, Iwata BA. Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1996; 29; 4: 519-533. 10.1901/jaba.1996.29-519. 8995834. 1284008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> deVries C, Yu CT, Sakko G. Predicting the relative efficacy of verbal, pictorial, and tangible stimuli for assessing preferences of leisure activities. American Journal of Mental Retardation. 2005; 110: 145-154. 10.1352/0895-8017(2005)110<145:PTREOV>2.0.CO;2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feliciano L, Steers ME, Elite-Marcandonatou A, Mclane M, Areán PA. Applications of preference assessment procedures in depression and agitation management in elders with dementia. Clinical Gerontologist. 2009; 32; 3: 239-259. 10.1080/07317110902895226. 22593610. 3351135</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fisher W, Piazza CC, Bowman LG, Hagopian LP, Owens JC, Slevin I. A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1992; 25: 491-498. 10.1901/jaba.1992.25-491. 1634435. 1279726</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fisher WW, Piazza CC, Bowman LG, Amari A. Integrating caregiver report with a systematic choice assessment to enhance reinforcer identification. American Journal on Mental Retardation. 1996; 101; 1: 15-25. 8827248</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gadd T. Person-centred respite supports: The perspectives of adults with intellectual disabilities in Ireland. British Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2020; 48; 4: 281-290. 10.1111/bld.12347</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graff RB, Karsten AM. Assessing preferences of individuals with developmental disabilities: A survey of current practices. Behavior Analysis in Practice. 2012; 5: 37-48. 10.1007/BF03391822. 23730465. 3592488</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Green CW, Reid DH, White LK, Halford RC, Brittain DP, Gardner SM. Identifying reinforcers for persons with profound handicaps: Staff opinion versus systematic assessment of preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1988; 21; 1: 31-43. 10.1901/jaba.1988.21-31. 2967274. 1286091</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hagopian LP, Long ES, Rush KS. Preference assessment procedures for individuals with developmental disabilities. Behavior Modification. 2004; 28: 668-677. 10.1177/0145445503259836. 15296524</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hanzen G, Waninge A, Vlaskamp C, van Nispen RM, van der Putten AA. Participation of adults with visual and severe or profound intellectual disabilities: Analysis of individual support plans. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 2018; 83: 132-141. 10.1016/j.ridd.2018.08.012. 30196028</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horrocks EL, Morgan RL. Comparison of a video-based assessment and a multiple stimulus assessment to identify preferred jobs for individuals with significant intellectual disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 2009; 30; 5: 902-909. 10.1016/j.ridd.2009.01.003. 19231132</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelly MA, Roscoe EM, Hanley GP, Schlichenmeyer K. Evaluation of assessment methods for identifying social reinforcers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2014; 47; 1: 113-135. 10.1002/jaba.107. 24604393</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lancioni GE, Singh NN, O'Reilly MF, Sigafoos J, Alberti G, Chiariello V, Carrella L. Everyday technology to support leisure and daily activities in people with intellectual and other disabilities. Developmental neurorehabilitation. 2020; 23; 7: 431-438. 10.1080/17518423.2020.1737590. 32118503</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lawlor D, Spitz R, York M, Harvey B. Using goal analysis to drive improvements in performance and outcomes. Journal of Intellectual Disabilities. 2013; 17; 4: 301-313. 10.1177/1744629513503590. 24008695</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> LeBlanc LA, Cherup SM, Feliciano L, Sidener TM. Using choice-making opportunities to increase activity engagement in individuals with dementia. American Journal of Alzheimer's Disease & Other Dementias. 2006; 21: 318-325. 10.1177/153317506292183</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> LeBlanc, L. A, Raetz, P. B, Baker, J. C, Strobel, M. J, & Feeney, B. J. (2008). Assessing preference in elders with dementia using multimedia and verbal pleasant events schedules. Behavioral Interventions: Theory & Practice in Residential & Community-Based Clinical Programs, 23(4), 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.266</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mehling MH, Tassé MJ. Impact of choice on Social Outcomes of adults with ASD. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 2015; 45; 6: 1588-1602. 10.1007/s10803-014-2312-6. 25413143</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morris SL, Vollmer TR. Assessing preference for types of social interaction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2019; 52; 4: 1064-1075. 10.1002/jaba.597. 31268168</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morris, S. L, & Vollmer, T. R. (2022, September 8). Comparing clinician-reported hierarchies of relative reinforcer efficacy to reinforcer assessment hierarchies. Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1037/bar0000257</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nuernberger JE, Smith CA, Czapar KN, Klatt KP. Assessing preference for social interaction in children diagnosed with autism. Behavioral Interventions. 2012; 27: 33-44. 10.1002/bin.1336</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olmstead v. L.C,527, O. L. C. (1999). U.S.581https://<ulink href="http://www.ada.gov/olmstead/olmstead%5fabout.html">www.ada.gov/olmstead/olmstead%5fabout.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parsons MB, Harper VN, Jenson JM, Reid DH. Assisting older adults with severe disabilities in expressing leisure preferences: A protocol for determining choice-making skills. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 1997; 18: 113-126. 10.1016/S0891-4222(96)00044-3. 9172280</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parsons MB, McCarn JE, Reid DH. Evaluating and increasing meal-related choices throughout a service setting for people with severe disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities. 1993; 18: 253-260. 10.1177/154079699301800408</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peacock, G. (2019). Addressing Gaps in Health Care for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities. Center for Disease Control Public Health Grand Rounds. Retrieved June 3, 2022, from https://<ulink href="http://www.cdc.gov/grand-rounds/pp/2019/20191015-intellectual-disabilities.html">www.cdc.gov/grand-rounds/pp/2019/20191015-intellectual-disabilities.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reid DH, Everson JM, Green CW. A systematic evaluation of preferences identified through person-centered planning for people with profound multiple disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1999; 32; 4: 467-477. 10.1901/jaba.1999.32-467. 10641301. 1284209</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robertson J, Emerson E, Hatton C, Elliott J, McIntosh B, Swift P, Krinjen-Kemp E, Towers C, Romeo R, Knapp M, Sanderson H, Routledge M, Oakes P, Joyce T. Person-Centred Planning: Factors associated with successful outcomes for people with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research. 2007; 51: 232-243. 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2006.00864.x. 17300419</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schwartz RJ, Robertson RE, Westerfield S. Increasing the Provision of Choices within an adult transition program. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities. 2020; 55; 3: 348-361</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sigafoos J, Kerr M, Roberts D, Couzens D, Attwood T, White V. A review of individual service plan goals for learners with challenging behaviours. British Journal of Learning Disabilities. 1994; 22; 1: 6-10. 10.1016/j.ridd.2018.08.012</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snyder K, Higbee TS, Dayton E. Preliminary investigation of a video-based stimulus preference assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 2012; 45: 413-418. 10.1901/jaba.2012.45-413. 22844148. 3405936</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stancliffe, Lakin KC, Larson S, Engler J, Taub S, Fortune J. Choice of living arrangements. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research. 2011; 55; 8: 746-762. 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2010.01336.x. 21029234</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thompson KM, Czarnecki D, Martin TL, Yu CT, Martin GL. Predicting optimal preference assessment methods for individuals with developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities. 2007; 42: 107-114PMID: 23539288; PMCID: PMC3608572</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tullis CA, Seaman-Tullis RL. Incorporating Preference Assessment into Transition Planning for People with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Behavior Analysis in Practice. 2019; 12; 3: 727-733. 10.1007/s40617-019-00353-6. 31976282. 6743528</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tullis CA, Cannella-Malone HI, Fleming CV. Multiple stimulus without replacement preference assessments: An examination of the relation between session number and effectiveness. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities. 2012; 24; 4: 337-345. 10.1007/s10882-012-9273-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Houten R, Axelrod S, Bailey JS, Favell JE, Foxx RM, Iwata BA, Lovaas OI. The right to effective behavioral treatment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 1988; 21; 4: 381-384. 10.1901/jaba.1988.21-381. 3225255. 1286137</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wells JC, Sheehey PH. Person-centered planning: Strategies to encourage participation and facilitate communication. Teaching Exceptional Children. 2012; 44; 3: 32-39. 10.1177/004005991204400304</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wolfe K, Kunnavatana SS, Shoemaker AM. An investigation of a video-based preference assessment of social interactions. Behavior Modification. 2018; 42; 5: 729-746. 10.1177/0145445517731062. 28911243</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sparks SL, Pierce T, Higgins K, Miller S, Tandy R. Increasing choice making in students with intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities. 2016; 55; 4: 331-343</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Casey J. Clay; Nelungwe Chuunga; Karen V. O'Connor and SungWoo Kahng</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref73"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1430928
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Incorporating Choice-Making Opportunities to Increase Engagement in Leisure Activities for Adults with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Casey+J%2E+Clay%22">Casey J. Clay</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6268-6779">0000-0002-6268-6779</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Nelungwe+Chuunga%22">Nelungwe Chuunga</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Karen+V%2E+O'Connor%22">Karen V. O'Connor</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22SungWoo+Kahng%22">SungWoo Kahng</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Developmental+and+Physical+Disabilities%22"><i>Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities</i></searchLink>. 2024 36(2):329-344.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Decision+Making%22">Decision Making</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Leisure+Time%22">Leisure Time</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Recreational+Activities%22">Recreational Activities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adults%22">Adults</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intellectual+Disability%22">Intellectual Disability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Developmental+Disabilities%22">Developmental Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Day+Programs%22">Day Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preferences%22">Preferences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Opportunities%22">Opportunities</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10882-023-09909-5
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1056-263X<br />1573-3580
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: A growing number of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) attend day programming. These programs are designed to give consumers the opportunity to explore the community, socialize with community members, and to engage in community activities. Unfortunately, activities offered may be selected by program staff without much input from the day program participants. Researchers examined the use of video-based paired stimulus preference assessments (VPA) to identify potentially preferred activities for three adults with IDD in a day program setting. Participant engagement levels during identified preferred activities were compared with staff-selected activities. Consistent with previous research, researchers were able to identify a hierarchy of preferred activities using the VPA. Researchers found preferred activities identified by the VPA maintained more engagement than staff-selected activities for all three participants. Our findings suggest VPA may be beneficial to incorporate into daily activity planning for adults with IDD in day programs.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1430928
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1430928
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10882-023-09909-5
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
        StartPage: 329
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Decision Making
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Leisure Time
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Recreational Activities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adults
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intellectual Disability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Developmental Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Day Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preferences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Opportunities
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Incorporating Choice-Making Opportunities to Increase Engagement in Leisure Activities for Adults with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Casey J. Clay
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Nelungwe Chuunga
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Karen V. O'Connor
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: SungWoo Kahng
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 04
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1056-263X
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-3580
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 36
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities
              Type: main
ResultId 1