Hannah MacNaul

The paired stimulus preference assessment (PSPA) is commonly used in both research and practice. However, two iterations have been described: a single‐presentation arrangement in which each tested stimulus is paired with one another once and a double‐presentation arrangement in which each tested stimulus is paired twice with counterbalanced placement. Each arrangement may have different advantages; however, no direct comparison exists. Thus, the purpose of the current study was to conduct both PSPA iterations to determine whether there are differences in the results obtained and which iteration was most efficient regarding time to administer. Seven participants were included, and results demonstrated high degrees of correspondence across preference assessment formats. The average time to administer the single‐presentation PSPA ( M =6.6 min) was almost half the time to administer a double‐presentation PSPA ( M =12.9 min), and no significant differences were observed for problem behavior, side biases, or latency to stimulus selection.

Challenging behavior exhibited by students in a school setting is one of the most significant obstructions to student learning. These behaviors often warrant specialized interventions delivered by educators in the presence of typically developing peers; however, the availability of personnel to prepare educators to implement said interventions is limited. One viable solution may be to leverage a pyramidal training model in which training is provided in tiers, allowing for more individuals to be trained within a shorter period. In the current study, one researcher utilized pyramidal training to prepare four educators to implement functional communication training without extinction to decrease aggression toward peers for one student in an inclusionary early childhood education setting. With written instruction only (similar to what a teacher might receive as part of a behavior intervention plan), all educators implemented the intervention with low fidelity (M = 15% steps completed correctly). Post-intervention, all educators were able to implement the intervention with the trainer at or above 80% fidelity, and skills improved to 100% fidelity during in situ training with the student. For the student, aggression was completely decreased to zero levels, and functional communication responses increased. Moreover, all results were maintained after the holiday break without additional training. Implications for research and practice will be discussed.