Skip to main content
NCBI home page
American Journal of Alzheimer's Disease and Other Dementias logoLink to American Journal of Alzheimer's Disease and Other Dementias
. 2006 Oct-Nov;21(5):318–325. doi: 10.1177/1533317506292183

Using Choice-Making Opportunities to Increase Activity Engagement in Individuals With Dementia

Linda A LeBlanc 1, Stacey M Cherup 2, Leilani Feliciano 3, Tina M Sidener 4
PMCID: PMC10832644  PMID: 17062550

Abstract

Structured choice-making procedures, referred to as preference assessments, have been frequently used to identify reinforcers for individuals with developmental disabilities; however, few studies have examined the use of preference assessments with older adults with dementia. This study evaluated the utility of 4 versions of a 2-choice preference assessment for identifying items and activities associated with high levels of engagement in clients at an adult day care program. The same 8 items were presented in 4 formats (ie, verbal, pictorial, textual, tangible), and items from each assessment were ranked with respect to the subsequent level of participant engagement with each item. Correlations were computed between the preference hierarchy and subsequent engagement levels for each format. The format with the highest correlation coefficient was subsequently used in interventions in which frequent structured choice opportunities were presented throughout the day to increase engagement. For 3 of 4 participants, the vocal modality was optimal, while the tangible modality was optimal for the fourth. Moderate to substantial increases in engagement were observed for all participants when structured choices were offered. Implications for activity engagement in adult day care programs are discussed.

Keywords: dementia, preference assessment, engagement, choice, adult day care

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (84.1 KB).

Contributor Information

Linda A. LeBlanc, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, linda.leblanc@wmich.edu .

Stacey M. Cherup, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo.

Leilani Feliciano, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo.

Tina M. Sidener, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo.

References

  1. Mace NL. Principles of activities for persons with dementia. Phys Occup Ther Geriatr. 1987;5(3): 13-27. [Google Scholar]
  2. Jenkins J, Felce D, Lunt B, Powell L. Increasing engagement in activity of residents in old people’s homes by providing recreational materials. Behav Res Ther. 1977; 15: 429-434. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Altus DE, Engelman KK, Mathews RM. Finding a practical method to increase engagement of residents on a dementia care unit. Am J Alzheimers Dis Other Demen. 2002;17: 245-248. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Engelman KK, Altus DE, Mathews RM. Increasing engagement in daily activities by older adults with dementia. J Appl Behav Anal. 1999;32: 107-110. [Google Scholar]
  5. Camp CJ, Orsulic-Jeras S, Lee MM, Judge KS. Effects of a Montessori-based intergenerational program on engagement and affect for adult day care clients with dementia. In: Wykle ML, Whitehouse PJ, Morris DL, eds. Successful Aging Through the Life Span: Intergenerational Issues in Health. New York: Springer; 2005:159-176. [Google Scholar]
  6. Teri L, Logsdon RG. Identifying pleasant activities for Alzheimer’s disease patients: The pleasant events schedule-AD. Gerontologist. 1991;31(1): 124-127. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Logsdon RG, Teri L. The Pleasant Events Schedule-AD: psychometric properties and relationship to depression and cognition in Alzheimer’s disease patients. Gerontologist. 1997;37(1): 40-45. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Staal JA, Pickney L, Roane DM. Assessment of stimulus preferences in multisensory environment therapy for older people with dementia. Br J Occup Ther. 2003;66: 542-550. [Google Scholar]
  9. Pace GM, Ivancic MT, Edwards GL, Iwata BA, Page TJ. Assessment of stimulus preference and reinforcer value with profoundly retarded individuals. J Appl Behav Anal. 1985;18: 249-255. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Fisher W, Piazza CC, Bowman LG, Hagopian LP, Owens JC, Slevin I. A comparison of two approaches for identifying reinforcers for persons with severe and profound disabilities. J Appl Behav Anal. 1992;25: 491-498. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. DeLeon IG, Iwata BA. Evaluation of a multiple-stimulus presentation format for assessing reinforcer preferences. J Appl Behav Anal. 1996;29: 519-532. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cannella HI, O’Reilly MF, Lancioni GE. Choice and preference assessment research with people with severe to profound developmental disabilities: a review of the literature. Res Dev Disabil. 2005;26: 1-15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Hagopian LP, Long ES, Rush KS. Preference assessment procedures for individuals with developmental disabilities. Behav Modif. 2004;28: 668-677. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Higbee TS, Carr JE, Harrison CD. The effects of pictorial versus tangible stimuli in stimulus preference assessments. Res Dev Disabil. 1999;20: 63-72. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Hanley GP, Iwata BA, Lindberg JS. Analysis of activity preferences as a function of differential consequences. J Appl Behav Anal. 1999;32: 419-435. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Parsons MB, Harper VN, Jenson JM, Reid DH. Assisting older adults with severe disabilities in expressing leisure preferences: a protocol for determining choice-making skills. Res Dev Disabil. 1997;18: 113-126. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Conyers C, Doole A, Vause T, Harapiak S, Yu DC, Martin GL. Predicting the relative efficacy of three presentation methods for assessing preferences of persons with developmental disabilities. J Appl Behav Anal. 2002;35: 49-58. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Kerr N, Meyerson L, Flora J. The measurement of motor, visual and auditory discrimination skills. Rehabil Psychol. 1977;24: 95-112. [Google Scholar]
  19. deVries C, Yu CT, Sakko G, et al. Predicting the relative efficacy of verbal, pictorial, and tangible stimuli for assessing preferences of leisure activities. Am J Ment Retard. 2005;110: 145-154. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. Mini-Mental State: a practical guide for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12: 189-198. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Martin GL, Yu CT. Overview of research on the Assessment of Basic Learning Abilities Test. J Devel Disabil. 2000;7: 10-36. [Google Scholar]
  22. Lichtenberg PA. Behavioral treatment of geriatric depression in health care settings. In: Mental Health Practice in Geriatric Health Care Settings. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press; 1998:119-132. [Google Scholar]
  23. Fisher WW, Piazza CC, Bowman LG, Amari A. Integrating caregiver report with a systematic choice assessment to enhance reinforcer identification. Am J Ment Retard. 1996;101: 15-25. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Frank EM. Effect of Alzheimer’s disease on communication function. J S C Med Assoc. 1994;90: 417-423. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Canella HI, O’Reilly MF, Lancioni GE. Choice and preference assessment research with people with severe to profound developmental disabilities: a review of the literature. Res Dev Disabil. 2005;26: 1-15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from American Journal of Alzheimer's Disease and Other Dementias are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications

RESOURCES