We evaluated a self-instructional training manual for conducting multiple-stimulus without replacement stimulus preference assessment. The manual was compared to a method description, adapted from the method sections of previous published research articles, in an unbalanced crossover design with 18 undergraduate university students, randomly assigned to two groups. In addition, a concurrent multiple-baseline design across four participants was embedded in each group. The manual was statistically significantly more effective than the method description in improving performance accuracy for conducting a preference assessment during post-training simulated assessments. Participants who achieved mastery (85% correct or higher) following training showed strong retention and generalization performance, as well as generalization to assessing a client with developmental disabilities. Lastly, participants rated the manual higher than the method description with regard to being easier to follow and understand and they indicated that the manual provided information for the assessment. Of the six participants who did not meet the mastery criterion after receiving both training methods, all met the mastery criterion after observing a live demonstration of the procedure.