One problem with informal interviews to identify reinforcers is that they are not:

Informal interviews to identify reinforcers can often lack reliability because they are subjective and may vary significantly depending on the interviewer and the context in which the interview takes place. Reliability refers to the consistency of a measurement, and when interviews are conducted informally, there may be biases, miscommunications, or misunderstandings that can lead to inconsistent results across different interviews or respondents.

In contrast, a systematic approach involves structured questions and a defined methodology, which can enhance the likelihood that responses are consistent and reproducible. This systematic method contrasts with the variability and potential inaccuracies found in informal conversational approaches, where critical details might be overlooked, and the interviewee’s responses could be influenced by a range of external factors.

Understanding the limitations of reliability in informal interviews emphasizes the importance of utilizing more structured methods of assessment to gather accurate data on potential reinforcers for individuals, particularly in contexts involving behavioral interventions in autism treatments. The emphasis on reliability supports the need for data-driven approaches that yield replicable and trustworthy results.