» Articles » PMID: 38405296

Mand Modality Preference Assessments Among High- and Low-Tech Options for Individuals with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: A Systematic Review

Overview
Specialty Psychiatry
Date 2024 Feb 26
PMID 38405296
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The extant literature demonstrates that individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) exhibit preferences among communication modalities when multiple modalities are available and produce reinforcement on identical reinforcement schedules. High- and low-tech communication options, such as voice output devices and picture cards, are commonly recommended for individuals with limited vocal communication skills. In this study, we conducted a systematic literature review of research studies that implemented mand modality preference assessments (MMPAs) that included both a high- and low-tech communication option with individuals with IDD. We identified 27 studies meeting our inclusion criteria and summarized the participant demographics, MMPA design and procedural variations, and MMPA outcomes. The results suggested that high-tech communication options were generally more preferred over low-tech options. However, there was a high degree of variability in how the studies were conducted and conclusions were reached. We discuss some of the current research gaps and the implications for clinical practice.

Citing Articles

Updated Recommendations for Reinforcement Schedule Thinning following Functional Communication Training.

Kranak M, Brown K Behav Anal Pract. 2024; 17(1):87-106.

PMID: 38405284 PMC: 10891008. DOI: 10.1007/s40617-023-00863-4.

References
1.
Bourret J, Iwata B, Harper J, North S . Elimination of position-biased responding in individuals with autism and intellectual disabilities. J Appl Behav Anal. 2012; 45(2):241-50. PMC: 3405922. DOI: 10.1901/jaba.2012.45-241. View

2.
Richman D, Wacker D, Winborn L . Response efficiency during functional communication training: effects of effort on response allocation. J Appl Behav Anal. 2001; 34(1):73-6. PMC: 1284300. DOI: 10.1901/jaba.2001.34-73. View

3.
Tiger J, Hanley G, Bruzek J . Functional communication training: a review and practical guide. Behav Anal Pract. 2012; 1(1):16-23. PMC: 2846575. DOI: 10.1007/BF03391716. View

4.
Daly 3rd E, Wells N, Swanger-Gagne M, Carr J, Kunz G, Taylor A . Evaluation of the multiple-stimulus without replacement preference assessment method using activities as stimuli. J Appl Behav Anal. 2010; 42(3):563-74. PMC: 2741066. DOI: 10.1901/jaba.2009.42-563. View

5.
Brodhead M, Al-Dubayan M, Mates M, Abel E, Brouwers L . An Evaluation of a Brief Video-Based Multiple-Stimulus Without Replacement Preference Assessment. Behav Anal Pract. 2016; 9(2):160-4. PMC: 4893028. DOI: 10.1007/s40617-015-0081-0. View