To gather client-nominated options before an ABA preference assessment, ask the person directly through an accessible communication method and observe ordinary voluntary choices. Add source-labeled caregiver or staff suggestions as possibilities, then let the person explore, reject, or remove them. Screen only for real safety, health, access, availability, or setting constraints. Adult nominations should expand the pool, never replace client choice.

Invite nominations accessibly

Ask Wren what feels enjoyable, useful, calming, interesting, social, creative, active, or worth more time. Accept speech, AAC, sign, writing, object selection, demonstration, or another reliable form. Offer time and privacy rather than rapid-fire questioning.

Label every source

Record whether an option came from Wren, a caregiver, staff, observation, records, or environmental availability. Note setting and date. Several adults repeating one suggestion may share one information chain and never outweigh Wren's refusal.

Include activities and social options

Consider optional activities, topics, sensory experiences, places, shared interactions, solitude, movement, creative work, music, games, or choices about how an activity occurs. Avoid reducing preference to food or portable objects.

Offer fair exploration

Let Wren encounter unfamiliar or symbolically represented options before judging nonselection. Check that a picture, word, or miniature actually means the intended activity to Wren. Record unavailable exploration and retain uncertainty.

Screen constraints transparently

Identify genuine allergies, swallowing needs, medical limits, legal restrictions, setting rules, cost, privacy, technology, or availability. Look for an effective adaptation. Label an option constrained or unavailable rather than rewriting it as unwanted.

Protect refusal and privacy

Give Wren a way to reject one option, reject all, stop nomination, or keep an interest private. A declined adult suggestion leaves the pool. Do not use access to a valued relationship or essential support as an assessment option.

Protect Wren's choice and basic access

For Wren, preserve AAC and other effective communication, privacy, ordinary supports, adequate food and water, bathroom, mobility, prescribed care, pain response, rest, supportive relationships, and emergency help. Verify health and safety before presenting options. Use applicable consent and assent processes, honor refusal and withdrawal during nonemergency participation, and never classify an access failure as low preference.

Build Wren's evidence ladder

Begin with Wren's accessible direct report and ordinary voluntary choice. Add source-labeled caregiver or staff suggestions, natural engagement, structured preference sampling, or response-consequence testing only when the decision needs stronger evidence. Keep preference, familiarity, availability, selection, engagement, reinforcer function, treatment choice, and outcome distinct. State what each layer can and cannot show.

Explain the assessment to Wren

Use Wren's preferred language and communication mode to explain the purpose, option set, method, duration, access, presentation, any removal, response definitions, privacy, risks, stop route, possible decisions, and uncertainty. Invite nomination, rejection, correction, pause, and withdrawal. Meaningful choice includes the ability to choose none, change a choice, or value an activity outside treatment.

Build Wren's client-nominated option pool

Create one versioned client-nominated option pool for the home and community preference review. Include purpose, client priority, option source, setting, method, definitions, access, health, consent and assent when applicable, ordinary supports, exposure, position, prompts, refusal, no response, invalidity, stops, integrity, raw data, client report, uncertainty, qualified authority, decision, safeguards, revision, and recheck trigger.

Work through Wren's example

Wren's option log begins with 18 source-labeled nominations: eight from Wren, five from a caregiver, and five from staff. Four overlap, leaving 14 distinct options. Wren declines two adult-suggested options after accessible exploration, so 12 remain ready. Report every source, four deduplications, two declines, and 12/14 ready options. The declined choices remain valid communication, not low cooperation. Preserve planned and valid units, raw counts, denominators, source labels, access states, missing conditions, refusals, stops, corrections, versions, decisions, and open work. This fictional example demonstrates one assessment control. It supplies no universal rank, preferred-item label, reinforcer function, legal conclusion, treatment effect, or outcome guarantee.

Use Wren's evidence for a bounded decision

Identify the exact decision and qualified owner before expanding assessment. For Wren, document supporting and conflicting evidence, client preference, option and method limits, access, health, alternatives, burden, further evidence, selected action, implementation check, accessible explanation, disagreement route, and review trigger. Choose the least burdensome adequate path and stop collection that cannot change action.

Review Wren's data without causal shortcuts

For Wren, show raw selections or engagement and denominators, representative exposure, direct and proxy sources, access, health context, recent availability, refusals, invalid trials, position, method integrity, missingness, alternatives, and uncertainty. Relative preference supports a candidate under sampled conditions. A reinforcement claim requires a response-consequence relation and evidence suited to that claim.

Address Wren's main assessment risk

A list built only from staff convenience can omit Wren's strongest interests. A list containing inaccessible pictures or unavailable activities can manufacture apparent low preference. The option pool keeps nomination, representation, feasibility, and client acceptance separate. Review definitions, client meaning, option source, access, health, method fit, exposure, position, removal, integrity, comparison, causal scope, and authority separately. A familiar format cannot rescue inaccessible options or justify unnecessary burden. Technical ranking never overrides Wren's current communication or basic access.

Choose Wren's next assessment action

Wren confirms the 12-option pool, identifies which choices should stay private or outside treatment, and chooses which small subset may enter the assessment. Record qualified owners, current safeguards, method and option versions, evidence tasks, due dates, validation, client communication, uncertainty, decision, and next review. Preserve the original data when the account changes. A later result adds an auditable version instead of rewriting what Wren selected under earlier conditions.

Apply current preference-assessment sources to Wren's method

For Wren, the CASP public summary gives high-level context for ABA treatment of autistic people. The current BACB Ethics Code addresses competence, client involvement, understandable communication, consent and assent when applicable, assessment, intervention, risk, documentation, and evaluation for covered people. BACB has no separate organizational jurisdiction. The BCBA outline includes preference-assessment design and evaluation as examination content, not a client protocol or practice authority.

Use preference-method research carefully for Wren

For Wren, Lill, Shriver, and Allen synthesized 65 articles into SPADS to help trained practitioners choose context-specific stimulus-preference assessment procedures. It identifies candidate reinforcers rather than proving a consequence's functional effect. A seven-participant DeLeon and Iwata study compared paired-stimulus, multiple-stimulus-with-replacement, and MSWO formats and described its results as preliminary. A two-child Kang study found removal-related problem behavior in paired and MSWO sessions under its tested conditions. These studies guide questions and safeguards; they do not create a universal method or threshold.

Protect assent and communication access for Wren

Breaux and Smith offer assent-focused practice guidance in an evolving evidence base. ASHA states that AAC users should always have access to their communication tools or devices. For Wren, preserve an accessible way to nominate, select, reject, pause, stop, correct, and change a choice. Do not require speech, eye contact, one motor form, compliance, or loss of essential access as the price of participation.

Close Wren's preference review

Review the client-nominated option pool with Wren, the responsible clinician, access and operational owners, and the specialists named in the manifest. Verify that options remain accessible and optional, basic access is protected, methods fit the question, refusals and invalid trials remain visible, preference and reinforcement claims stay separate, and decisions remain within authority. Keep this page draft and noindex until every required review is complete.

Related resources

Sources