TRAINING STAFF TO IMPLEMENT BRIEF STIMULUS PREFERENCE ASSESSMENTS CHRISTINA R. WELDY AND JOHN T. RAPP ST. CLOUD STATE UNIVERSITY AND KELLI CAPOCASA AUTISM MATTERS We trained 9 behavioral staff members to conduct 2 brief preference assessments using 30-min video presentations that contained instructions and modeling. After training, we evaluated each staff member’ s implementation of the assessments in situ. Results indicated that 1 or 2 training sessions for each method were sufficient for teaching each staff member to implement each assessment. We briefly discuss the clinical implications of our findings. Key words: staff training, stimulus preference assessments, video modeling Numerous studies have shown that stimulus preference assessments can identify reinforcers for individuals who have been diagnosed with developmental disabilities (e.g., Carr, Nicolson, & Higbee, 2000; DeLeon & Iwata, 1996; Roane, Vollmer, Ringdahl, & Marcus, 1998). For this reason, implementation of stimulus preference assessments is an important skill in which to train staff who work with this population. Training procedures have included antecedent-based ap- proaches, such as enhanced instructions and video modeling (Graff & Karsten, 2012; Moore & Fisher, 2007), and consequence-based ap- proaches, such as performance feedback and reinforcement contingencies (Roscoe & Fisher, 2008; Roscoe, Fisher, Glover, & Volkert, 2006). Considerations when selecting staff training procedures include the amount of time and trainer resources available. Studies have shown that brief training procedures are effective (Graff & Karsten, 2012; Roscoe & Fisher, 2008). Although these methods require less training time, they still require training on an individual- ized basis, which may be difficult in settings with limited time and trainer resources. One way to address this limitation is to train preference assessments in a group-based format. For exam- ple, Catania, Almeida, Liu-Constant, and Di- Gennaro Reed (2009) used video modeling to train multiple staff members simultaneously to implement discrete-trial instruction. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the effects of a video presentation with instructions and modeling on nine staff members’ implementation of a brief multiple-stimulus- without-replacement (MSWO; Carr et al., 2000) assessment and a brief free-operant (FO; Roane et al., 1998) assessment. We trained staff members in two small groups, in the absence of a supervisor, and then assessed their perfor- mance during in situ probe sessions. METHOD Participants, Setting, and Materials Nine staff members (seven women, two men) employed at a behavioral clinic for children and adolescents with autism served as the participants Portions of this study were conducted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Masters degree in Behavior Analysis by the first author. Please address correspondence to John T. Rapp, St. Cloud State University, Education Building, A 261, 720 4th Avenue South, St. Cloud, Minnesota 56301 (e-mail: jtrapp@stcloudstate.edu). doi: 10.1002/jaba.98 JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 2014, 47, 1–5 NUMBER 1(SPRING) 1