ArticleBehavior analysis in practice2026
Making Preference Assessments More Acceptable and Effective for People with Dementia.
Article in Behavior analysis in practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For people with dementia, meaningful engagement with preferred activities is a vital component in maintaining quality of life. Preference assessments have been found to identify preferred and reinforcing stimuli for people with dementia. However, because they have been predominantly validated for individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities, there are likely aspects of the assessment that need to be adapted. We implemented standard stimulus preference assessments for four people with dementia, and designed some adaptations based on objective measures of their choice, affect, verbal responding, and the input of the participants. We then compared the standard and the adapted versions in a multielement design. We found that both the standard and adapted assessments resulted in similar selections of stimuli. We observed an increase in indices of happiness and a decrease in indices of unhappiness for three out of four participants during the adapted version compared to the standard version. Family, staff, and the people with dementia reported both the standard and adapted preference assessments to be socially valid. One participant reported better understanding what they were being asked to do in the adapted assessment, and a staff member reported the adapted assessment to be more effective. We also found a decrease in the frequency of statements that were off-topic, socially polite, or about items being "sold" to them across all four participants in the adapted assessment. We further extended the work of Reid and Green (1996) by incorporating indices of confusion to capture a broader range of affect. On the basis of our results, we give some examples of how to make preference assessments more acceptable for people with dementia. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-025-01145-x.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.