A Continuum of Methods for Assessing Preference for Conversation Topics

Introduction

Conversation is a fundamental part of social interaction, yet individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) often face challenges in engaging in reciprocal conversations. One way to enhance conversational engagement is by incorporating preferred topics. Research indicates that when individuals with ASD discuss preferred topics, they are more likely to participate actively, demonstrate sustained attention, and engage in social interactions.

Despite the significance of conversation-topic preference, little research has focused on systematically assessing these preferences. Understanding an individual's preferred topics could improve social interventions and help behavior analysts design more effective programming.

A recent study by Kronfi, Morris, and Vollmer (2024) explores various methods for assessing conversation-topic preferences through structured preference assessments. This blog post reviews their findings and discusses the implications for practitioners working with individuals with ASD.

Why Conversation Preferences Matter in ASD

1. Social Skills Development

Many individuals with ASD experience difficulties with conversation, including initiating and maintaining dialogue. Engaging in conversations about preferred topics can:

• Increase motivation to speak and listen.
• Improve conversational turn-taking.
• Provide natural reinforcement for social interactions.

2. The Role of Social Reinforcers

Previous research suggests that social reinforcement, such as praise or conversational engagement, can be as effective as tangible reinforcers like edibles or toys (Kelly et al., 2014; Morris & Vollmer, 2019). For social reinforcement to be effective, identifying topics that naturally sustain engagement is essential.

3. Barriers to Effective Social Reinforcement

Not all individuals with ASD respond to social reinforcement in the same way. Some may show little interest in certain topics, making typical social reinforcers less effective. This highlights the need for structured methods to assess and identify topics that serve as potent reinforcers.

Study Objectives

Kronfi, Morris, and Vollmer (2024) aimed to evaluate three methods for systematically assessing conversation-topic preferences:

1. Self-Report Preference Assessment: Directly asking individuals about their preferred topics.
2. Multiple-Stimulus-Without-Replacement (MSWO) Preference Assessment: Ranking topics based on repeated selection.
3. Response Restriction Conversation Assessment (RRCA): Measuring engagement across different conversation topics.

The study sought to determine the efficiency, accuracy, and practicality of these methods for identifying conversation preferences.

Methods & Procedures

Participants & Setting

• 5 individuals diagnosed with ASD (ages 9-17).
• Sessions conducted in a clinical setting.
• All participants had conversational abilities at or near their age level.

1. Self-Report Preference Assessment

• Participants listed four conversation topics they enjoyed.
• They ranked the topics according to preference without further prompting.
• This method was quick (~1 minute per participant) but relied on subjective self-reporting.

2. Multiple-Stimulus-Without-Replacement (MSWO) Preference Assessment

• Participants were presented with conversation topics on index cards.
• Topics were chosen one at a time and removed from the array.
• Each time a topic was selected, the researcher discussed that topic for ~30 seconds.
• The order of selection determined preference rankings.

3. Response Restriction Conversation Assessment (RRCA)

• Participants were exposed to discussions on different preselected topics for a set time.
• Measures included how often participants initiated conversation, sustained engagement, and responded to conversation cues.
• The most engaging topics were considered highly preferred.

Key Findings & Implications for Practitioners

1. Preference Assessment Methods Differ in Efficiency

• The Self-Report Method was the quickest but lacked reliability.
• The MSWO Assessment took slightly longer (~5 minutes per participant) but provided more structured data.
• The RRCA Method was the most time-consuming but yielded the most accurate measure of engagement.

2. Self-Report May Not Be Reliable for All Individuals

Some participants listed topics as preferred but showed low engagement during conversations about them. This suggests that behavior analysts should rely on observational methods instead of verbal self-report alone.

3. RRCA Provided the Most Accurate Preference Rankings

Since RRCA directly measured how much individuals engaged in different topics, it was the most precise measure. However, it required the most time and effort, making it less practical for repeated use in all settings.

Application for Behavior Analysts

Behavior analysts working with individuals with ASD can use the following takeaways:

• Start with Self-Report, but Validate with Observations: While self-reporting is efficient, it should be supplemented with behavioral assessments.
• MSWO is a Practical Compromise: If time is limited, MSWO provides a structured way to rank preferences efficiently.
• Use RRCA When Highly Accurate Assessment is Needed: For clinical decisions requiring detailed preference data, RRCA is the most reliable method.

Behavior analysts can integrate these assessments into social skills training, functional communication interventions, and behavior support planning.

Conclusion

Assessing conversation-topic preference is essential for improving social engagement in individuals with ASD. The study by Kronfi, Morris, and Vollmer (2024) demonstrates a continuum of methods, each with its strengths and limitations. While self-reporting provides quick insights, behavioral measures like MSWO and RRCA offer more reliability.

Practitioners should consider using a combination of these methods to optimize social interventions. Understanding what topics individuals enjoy discussing can enhance their motivation to engage in meaningful and fulfilling conversations.

For a detailed review, access the full study at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-023-00842-9.