Özel Gereksinimli Bireylerin Tercihlerinin Değerlendirilmesi

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 18 Sayı: 02, 309 - 328, 22.02.2017

Müzeyyen Eldeniz-çetin

https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.293726

Cited By: 8

Öz

Özel gereksinimli
bireylerin topluma kazandırılmasında eğitim oldukça önemli rol oynamaktadır.
Eğitimin etkili olabilmesi için özel gereksinimli bireylerin problem
davranışlarının azaltılması, etkinliklere yönelik motivasyonlarının ve
etkinlikle ilgili olma davranışlarının artırılması gerekmekte ve artırılması
hedeflenen davranışlarda pekiştireç kullanımı oldukça önemli olmaktadır. Pekiştireçlerin
bireylerde pekiştirme rolü üstlenebilmesi için bireylerin tercihlerinin doğru
tespit edilmesi, bunun için de farklı ortamlarda gözlemlerin yapılması ya da
tercihlerin değerlendirilmesi gerekmektedir. Alan yazında tercihleri tespit
etmek için gözlem yönteminin kullanılabildiği belirtilmekte ancak gözlemi yapan
kişinin bireysel özellikleri, gözlem sırasındaki uyaranların sınırlılığı ve
gözlemin uzun zaman almasından dolayı sistematik olarak uygulanan tercih
değerlendirmelerinin de kullanılabildiği görülmektedir. Tercih
değerlendirmeleri, bireylerin tercihlerini belirlemek için yapılan
değerlendirmelerdir. Bu makalede
tercih değerlendirme, özel gereksinimli bireylerin tercihlerini belirtme davranışları,
tercih değerlendirme türleri ve etkili bir şekilde tercih değerlendirmesi
yapmak için nelere dikkat edilmesi gerektiği tartışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Özel gereksinimli birey, tercih, tercih değerlendirmesi

Kaynakça

• Ataman, A. (2005). Özel gereksinimli çocuklar ve özel eğitim. A. Ataman (Ed.), Özel eğitime giriş içinde (ss. 9-30). Ankara: Gündüz Eğitim ve Yayıncılık.
• Ataman, A. (2013). Özel eğitimin temelleri. A. Cavkaytar (Ed.), Özel eğitim içinde (ss. 1-19). Ankara: Vize Yayıncılık.
• Bambara, L. M., Ager, C., & Koger, F. (1994). The effects of choice and task preference on the work performance of adults with severe disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27(3), 555-556.
• Bambara, L. M., & Koger, F. (1996). Innovations: Opportunities for daily choice making. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.
• Baykoç Dönmez, N. (2010). Özel gereksinimli çocuklar ve özel eğitim. N. Baykoç (Ed.), Özel eğitim içinde (ss. 13-26). Ankara: Gündüz Eğitim ve Yayıncılık.
• Besler, F., & Süzer, T. (2014). Pekiştirme. E. Tekin-İftar (Ed.), Uygulamalı davranış analizi içinde (ss. 213-263). Ankara: Vize Yayıncılık.
• Carr, J. E., Nicolson, A. C., & Higbee, T. S. (2000). Evaluation of a brief multiple-stimulus preference assessment in a naturalistic context. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33(3), 353-357.
• Carter, E. W., Sisco, L. G., & Lane, K. L. (2011). Paraprofessional perspectives on promoting self-determination among elementary and secondary students with severe disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36(1-2), 1-10.
• Ciccone, F. J., Graff, R. B., & Ahearn, W. H. (2005). An alternate scoring method for the multiple stimulus without replacement preference assessment. Behavioral Interventions, 20(2), 121-127.
• Clark, C. D. (2006). Teaching choice making to children with visual impairments and multiple disabilities in preschool and kindergarten classroom (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.3241834)
• Cote Sparks, S., & Cote, D. L. (2012). Teaching choice making to elementary students with mild to moderate disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 47(5), 290-296.
• Dattilo, J. (1986). Computerized assessment of preference for severely handicapped individuals. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 19(4), 445-448.
• DeLeon, I. G., & Iwata, B. A. (1996). Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29(4), 519-532.
• DeLeon, I. G., Fisher, W. W., Catter, V. R., Maglieri, K., Herman, K., & Marhefka, J. (2001) .Examination of relative reinforcement effects of stimuli identified through pretreatment and daily brief preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34(4), 463- 473.
• Derby, K. M., Wacker, D. P., Andelman, M., Berg, W., Drew, J., Asmus, J., et al. (1995). Two measures of preference during forced-choice assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28(3), 345-346.
• Downing J. E., & Eichinger, J.(2008). Educating students with diverse strenghts and needs together. In J. E. Downing (Eds.), Including students with severe and multiple disaiblities in typical classrooms. (pp. 1-21). Baltimore: Paul Brooks Publishing Co.
• Downing, J. E., & Peckham-Hardin, K. D. (2006). Students with severe and multiple disabilities. In. J. E. Downing (Eds.), Special education. (pp. 530-568). Boston: A Pearson Education Company.
• Eldeniz Çetin, M. (2013). Ağır ve çoklu yetersizliği olan bireylerin tercihlerinin değerlendirilmesi ve seçim yapma becerisinin öğretimi (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Ankara, Türkiye). http://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/’ inden elde edilmiştir. (Tez No. 333504)
• Erden, M., & Akman, Y. (1995). Eğitim psikolojisi gelişim-öğrenme-öğretme, Ankara: Arkadaş Yayınevi.
• Eripek, S. (2002). Özel eğitim. Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi Yayınları.
• Field, S., Martin, J., Miller, R., Ward, M., & Wehmeyer, M. (1998). A practical guide for teaching self-determination. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
• Field, S., Martin, J., Miller, R., Ward, M., & Wehmeyer, M. (1998). Self-determination for persons with disabilities: A position statement of the division on career development and transition. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 21(2), 113-128. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/088572889802100202
• Fisher, W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., Hagopian, L. P., Owens, J. C., & Slevin, I. (1992). A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25(2), 491-498.
• Fisher, W. W., & Mazur, J. E. (1997). Basic and applied research on choice responding. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 3(30), 387-410.
• Fisher, W. W., Piazza, C. C., Bowman, L. G., & Amari, A. (1996). Integrating caregiver report with systematic choice assessment to enhance reinforcer identification. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 101(1), 15-25.
• Goode, D. A., & Gaddy, M. R. (1976). Ascertaining choice with alingual, deaf-blind and retarded clients. Mental Retardation, 14(6), 10-12.
• Green, C. W., Reid, D. H., White, L. K., Halford, R. C., Brittain, D. P., & Gardner, S. M. (1988). Identifying reinforcers for persons with profound handicaps: Staff opinion versus systematic assessment of preferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21(1), 31-43.
• Green, C. & Reid, D. (1996). Defining, validating, and increasing indices of happiness among people with profound multiple disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29(1), 67-78.
• Guess, D., Benson, H. A., & Siegel-Causey, E. (1985). Concepts and issues related to choice making and autonomy among persons with severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 10(2). 79-86.
• Guess, D., Benson H., & Siegel-Causey, E. (2008). Concepts and issues related to choice making autonomy among persons with severe disabilities. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33(1-2), 75-81.
• Harchik, A.E., Sherman, J. A., Sheldon, J. B., & Bannerman, D. J. (1993). Choice and Control New Opportunities for People with Developmental Disabilities. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry, 5(3), 151-161.
• Hagopian, L. P., Long, E. S., & Rush, K. S. (2004). Preference assessment procedures for ındividuals with developmental disabilities. Behavior Modification, 28(5), 668.
• Hagopian, L. P., Rush, K. S., Lewin, A. B., & Long, E. S. (2001). Evaluating the predictive validity of a single stimulus engagement preference assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34(4), 475-485.
• Harding, W. J., Waeker, P. D., Berg, K. W., Barretto, A., & Rankin, B. (2002). Assessment and treatment of severe behaviors problems using choice-making procedures. Education and Treatment of Children, 25(1), 26-46.
• Higbee, T. S., Carr, J. E., & Harrison, C. D. (1999). The effects of pictorial versus tangible stimuli in stimulus-preference assessments. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 20(1), 63-72.
• Higbee, T. S., Carr, J. E., & Harrison, C. D. (2000). Further evaluation of the multiple-stimulus preference assessment. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 21(1), 61-73.
• Holverstott, L., (2005). Promote self-determination in students. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41(1), 39-41.
• Horrocks, E., & Higbee, T. S. (2008). An evaluation of a stimulus preference assessment of auditory stimuli for adolescents with developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 29(1), 11-20.
• Houlihan, D. D., Bates-Purple, R., Jones R. N., & Sloane, H. N. (1992). The simultaneous presentation procedure: Use in selecting reinforcers for behavioral intervention. Education & Treatment of Children, 15(3), 244-254.
• Ivancic, M. T., & Bailey, J. S. (1996). Current limits to reinforcer identification for some persons with profound multiple disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 17(1), 77-92.
• Kearney, C. A., & McKnight, T. J. (1997). Preference, choice and persons with disabilities: A synopsis of assessments, interventions and future directions. Clinical Psychology Review, 17(2), 217-238.
• Kennedy, C. H., & Haring, T. G. (1993). Teaching choice making during social interactions to students with profound multiple disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26(1), 63-76.
• Koeppel, B. (1998). The effects of a touchscreen program on choice-making for an expressively impaired toddler (Maester’s thesis). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No.1389313)
• Lavie, T., & Sturmey, P. (2002). Training staff to conduct a paired-stimulus preference assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 35(2), 209-211.
• Logan, K. R., Jacobs, H. A., Gast, D. L., Smith, P. D., Daniel, J., & Rawls, J. (2001). Preferences and reinforcers for students with profound multiple disabilities: Can we identify them? Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 13(2), 97-122.
• Logan, K. R., & Gast, D. L. (2001). Conducting preference assessments and reinforcer testing for individuals with profound multiple disabilities: Issues and procedures. Exceptionality, 9(3), 123-134.
• Lohrmann-O’Rourke, S., Browder, D. B., & Brown, F. (2000). Guidelines for conducting socially valid systematic preference assessments. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 25(1), 42-53.
• Matson, J. L., Bielecki, J. A., Mayville, E. A., Smalls, Y., Bamburg, J. W., & Baglio, C. S. (1999). The development of a reinforcer choice assessment scale for persons with severe and profound mental retardation. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 20(5), 379-384.
• Mechling L. C., & Moser S. V. (2010). Video preference assessment of students with autism for watching self, adults, or peers. Focus on Autism and other Developmental Disabilities, 25(2), 76-84.
• Mechling, L. C., & Bishop, V. A. (2011). Assessment of computer-based preferences of students with profound multiple disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 45(1), 15-27.
• Mechling, L. C., Gast, D. L., & Cronin, B. A. (2006). The effects of presenting high preference items, paired with choice, via computer-based video programming on task completion of students with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. Focus on Autism and other Developmental Disabilities, 21(1), 7-13.
• Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (2012). Özel Eğitim Hizmetleri Yönetmeliği https://orgm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2012_10/10111226_ozel_egitim_hizmetleri_yonetmeligi_son.pdf adresinden elde edilmiştir.
• Christensen, D.L., Baio, J., Braun, K. V. N., Bilder, D., Charles, J., Constantino, J.N., et al. (2016). Prevalence and Characteristics of Autism Spectrum Disorder Among Children Aged 8 Years - Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 11 Sites, United States. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 65(3), 1–23. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html
• Pace, G. M., Ivancic, M. T., Edwards, G. L., Iwata, B. A., & Page, T. J. (1985). Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18(3), 249-255.
• Parsons, M. B., & Reid, D. H. (1990). Assessing food preferences among persons with profound mental retardation: Providing opportunities to making choices. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23(2), 183-195.
• Patel, M. R., Carr, J. E., & Dozier, C. L. (1998). On the role of stimulus preference assessment in the evaluation of contingent access to stimuli associated with stereotypy during behavioral acquisition. Behavioral Interventions, 13(4), 269-274.
• Piazza, C. C., Adelinis, J. D., Hanley, G. P., Goh, H., & Delia, M. D. (2000). An evaluation of the effects of matched stimuli on behaviors maintained by automatic reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33(1), 13-27.
• Piazza, C. C., Fisher, W. W., Hagopian, L. P., Bowman, L. G., & Toole, L. (1996). Using a choice assessment to predict reinforcer effectiveness. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29(1), 1-9.
• Piazza, C. C., Fisher, W. W., Hanley, G. P., Hilker, K., & Derby, K. M. (1996). A preliminary procedure for predicting the positive and negative effects of reinforcement-based procedures. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29(2), 137-152.
• Powers, L. E. (2005). Self-determination by individuals with severe disabilities: Limitations or excuses? Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30(3), 168-172. Rech, H. (2012). The origins, evolution, and future of preference assessments in applied behavior analysis (Master’ thesis, Southern Illinois Unıversity). Retrieved from http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1354&context=gs_rp
• Reed, D. D., Luiselli, J. K., Magnuson, J. D., Fillers, S., Vieira, S., & Rue, H. C. (2009). A comparison between traditional economical and demand curve analyses of relative reinforcer efficacy in the validation of preference assessment predictions. Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 12(3), 164-169.
• Reid, D. H., Dicarlo, C. F., Schepis, M. M., Hawkins, J., & Stricklin, S. B. (2003). Observational assessment of toy preferences among young children with disabilities in inclusive settings efficiency analysis and comparison with staff opinion. Behavior Modification, 27(2), 233-250.
• Roane, H. S., Vollmer, T. R., Ringdahl, J. E., & Marcus B. A. (1998). Evaluation of a brief stimulus preference assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 31(4), 605-620.
• Rush, K. S., Bruce, M., P., & Birch S. E. (2010). Evaluation of preference assessment procedures for use with ınfants and toddlers. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 6(1), 2-16.
• Salmento, M., & Bambara, L. M. (2000). Teaching staff members to provide choice opportunities for adults with multiple disabilities. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 2(1), 12-21.
• Shevin, M., & Klein, N. K. (1984). The importance of choice-making skills for students with severe disabilities. The Journal of The Association for the Severely Handicapped, 9(3), 159-166.
• Shevin, M., ve Klein, N. K. (2004). The importance of choice-making skills for students with severe disabilities. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 29(3), 161-168. Retrived from http://rps.sagepub.com/content/29/3/161.
• Sigafoos, J., & Dempsey, R. (1992). Assessing choice making among children with multiple disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25(3), 747-755.
• Singh, N. N., Lancioni, G. E., O’Reilly, M. F., Molina, E. J., Adkins, A. D., & Oliva, D. (2003). Self-determination during mealtimes through microswitch choice-making by an individual with complex multiple disabilities and profound mental retardation. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 5(4), 209-215.
• Smith R. G., Iwata B. A., & Shore B. A. (1995). Effects of subject- versus experimenter-selected reinforcers on the behavior of individuals with profound developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28(1), 61-71.
• Spevack, S. M. (2006). Assessing stimulus preferences and testing stimuli as reinforcers for children and adults with profound mental retardation and multiple disabilities (Doctoral dissertation, Manitoba University). Retrieved from http://mspace.lib.umanitoba.ca/bitstream/handle/1993/20416/
• Spevack, S., Wright, L., Yu, C. T., Walters, K. L., & Holborn, S. (2008). Passive and active approach responses in preference assessment for children with profound multiple disabilities and minimal movement. Journal on Developmental Disabilities. 14, 2. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3608576/pdf/nihms2616.
• Stafford, A. (2005). Choice making: A strategy for students with severe disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 37(6), 12-17.
• Stafford, A. M. (1999). Preference variability and the instruction of choice making with students with severe intellectual disabilities (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 9926049)
• Stafford, A. M., Alberto, P. A., Fredrick, L. D., Heflin, L. J., & Heller, K. W. (2002). Preference variability and the instruction of choice making with students with severe intellectual disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37(1), 70-88.
• Stalker, K., & Harris, P. (1998). The exercise of choice by adults with intellectual disabilities: A literature review. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 11(1), 60-76. Stephenson, J., & Linfoot, K. (1995). Choice-making as a natural context for teaching early communication board use to a ten year old boy with no spoken language and severe intellectual disability. Australia & New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 20(4), 263-286.
• Sturmey, P., Lee, R., Reyer, H., & Robek, A. (2003). Assessing preferences for staff: Some pilot data. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 31(1), 103-107.
• Tam, G. M., Phillips, K. J., & Mudford, O. C. (2011). Teaching individuals with profound multiple disabilities to access preferred stimuli with multiple microswitches. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32(6), 2352-2361.
• Thomson, K. M., Czarnecki, D., Martin, T. L, Yu, C. T., & Martin, G. L. (2007). Predicting optimal preference assessment methods for individuals with developmental disabilities. Education Training in Developmental Disabilities, 42(1), 107-114.
• Ülke Kürkçüoğlu, B. (2007a). Otistik özellik gösteren çocuklara birebir öğretimde etkinlikler içi ve arası seçim fırsatları sunmanın etkilerinin karşılaştırılması. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi, Anadolu Üniversitesi, Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Eskişehir. Türkiye). http://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/’ inden elde edilmiştir. (Tez No. 211653)
• Ülke Kürkçüoğlu, B. (2007b). Otistik özellik gösteren çocuklara sunulan seçim fırsatları ve etkileri. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi, 8(2), 67-83.
• Van Tubbergen, M., Omichinski, D., & Warschausky, S. (2007). How children with severe disabilities make choices of preference and knowledge. Exceptional Parent, 37(5), 36-38. Retrived from https://www.questia.com/magazine/1G1-164105451/how-children-with-severe-disabilities-make-choices
• Van Tubbergen, M., Warschausky, S., Birnholz, J., & Baker, S. (2008). Choice beyond preference: Conceptualization and assessment of choice-making skills in children with significant impairments. Rehabilitation Psychology, 53(1), 93-100.
• Waldvogel, J. M., & Dixon, M. R. (2008). Exploring the utility of preference assessments in organizational behavior management. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 28(1), 76-87.
• Wehmeyer, M. L. (2003). Self-determination, vocational rehabilitation and workplace supports. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 19, 67-69. Retrived from https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/17905/WehemeyerM_JVR_19(2)67.pdf?sequence=1
• Wilder, D. A., Schadler, J., Higbee, T. S., Haymes, L.K., Bajagic, V., & Register, M. (2008). Identification of olfactory stimuli as reinforcers ın ındividuals with autism: a preliminary ınvestigation. Behavioral Interventions, 23(2), 97-103.
• Windsor, J., Piche, L.M., & Locke, P.A. (1994). Preference testing: A comparison of two presentation methods. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 15(6), 439-455.
• Wood, W. M., Karvonen, M., Test, D. W., Browder, D., & Algozzine, B. (2004). Promoting student self-determination skills in IEP planning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(3), 8-16.