Content uploaded by Emma Auten
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Emma Auten on Feb 01, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
DISCUSSION
A review of the concurrent-chains arrangement to assess
intervention choice: 2018–2023
Emma M. Auten
1
| Carole Van Camp
2
| Allie B. Ferguson
2
1
Children’s Specialized Hospital—Rutgers
University Center for Autism Research,
Education, and Services (CSH-RUCARES),
Somerset, NJ, USA
2
Department of Psychology, University of
North Carolina Wilmington, Wilmington,
NC, USA
Correspondence
Emma M. Auten, Children’s Specialized
Hospital, Somerset, NJ, 08873, USA.
Email: eauten@childrens-specialized.org
Editor-in-Chief: John Borrero
Handling Editor: Daniel Fienup
Abstract
The purpose of this review is to summarize recent literature on the use of concurrent-
chains arrangements in the assessment of preference for interventions (or intervention
components) in the applied literature. The types of interventions and participants
are described briefly, and procedural variations, ethical considerations, and rec-
ommendations for future research are discussed.
KEYWORDS
choice, concurrent chains, review, social validity
Social validity encompasses the social significance of
goals, appropriateness of procedures, and importance
of effects (Wolf, 1978) and should be an integral component
of behavior-analytic interventions. Schwartz and Baer
(1991) expanded on Wolf (1978), noting that the assess-
ment of social validity was intended to be a supplement
to measuring target behaviors as “directly, behavior-
ally, objectively, and reliably as possible”(p. 191). The
authors further suggested that social validity should be
assessed for relevant consumers of behavior-change
programs. This is reflected in the Behavior Analyst
Certification Board (BACB) Ethics Code, which states
that behavior analysts should consider relevant factors
such as client and stakeholder preference when imple-
menting behavior-change procedures (BACB, 2022).
Evaluating choice is one way to obtain information
about preference (Kestner et al., 2023). An early evalu-
ation of objective choice for token economy arrange-
ments was reported by Iwata and Bailey (1974);
however, that approach remained uncommon for
decades. Notably, a review by Ferguson et al. (2019)
indicated that only 141 of 1,209 (12%) articles pub-
lished in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis from
1999 to 2016 included measures of social validity. Rat-
ing scales and questionnaires were used in 54 of the
141 articles (38%), but only 8 of the 141 (6%) articles
directly evaluated intervention choice.
One method of directly evaluating choice is a
concurrent-chains arrangement (Hanley et al., 1997). In
this, two (or more) independent schedules are arranged
concurrently for two (or more) operants in the initial
links. Responding to the initial link produces access to
the respective schedule in the terminal link. In applied
arrangements, the initial link typically includes stimuli
that have been used during each schedule (e.g., intervention)
and the terminal link involves brief exposure to the inter-
vention chosen. Ferguson et al. (2019) found that this pro-
cedure was used in merely 13 of the 1,209 (i.e., about 1%)
articles reviewed in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis.
A concurrent-chains arrangement may be a desired method
for evaluating preference because it (a) allows an individual
to directly experience and then select a behavior-change
procedure and (b) does not require any vocal-verbal
responding (Hanley, 2010).
The purpose of this review was to explore the use
of concurrent-chains arrangements to assess prefer-
ence for interventions in studies that were published in
the past 5 years, with a focus on procedural variations,
ethical considerations, and directions for future
research.
Received: 11 July 2023 Accepted: 12 January 2024
DOI: 10.1002/jaba.1059
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2024 The Authors. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior (SEAB).
J Appl Behav Anal. 2024;1–12. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jaba 1
METHOD
Inclusion and exclusion criteria, intercoder
agreement, and data extraction
Two doctoral-level Board Certified Behavior Analysts
and one doctoral-level graduate student conducted a
search of the literature. The journals that were searched
were those listed in Table 1of Briggs and Mitteer (2022)
in addition to the Journal of the Experimental Analysis of
Behavior and Learning and Motivation. These journals
were searched because they are peer-reviewed journals
that are relevant to behavior-analytic research, practice,
or both. The term “concurrent chain”was searched in
each journal’s home page, with a search parameter of
January 2018–June 2023. No quotations were used in the
initial search; therefore, articles that used the word “con-
current”or “chain”were included in the search results.
To be included in the present review, the article had to
(a) be an applied evaluation of a concurrent-chains
arrangement to evaluate preference for intervention,
(b) be published in English, and (c) include human
subjects. Intervention was defined as a behavior-analytic
behavior-change procedure designed to produce a notice-
able change in socially significant behavior for members
of a clinical population. A concurrent-chains arrangement
was defined as two (or more) independent schedules
arranged concurrently for two (or more) operants in the
initial links, with responding to the initial link producing
access to the respective arrangement in the terminal link.
Articles were excluded if they used a concurrent-chains
arrangement to evaluate preference for stimuli but did
not include an intervention contingency in the terminal
link (e.g., Kunze et al., 2019, evaluated preferences for
the language output of a speech-generating device). In
addition, the terminal link must have included at least
one condition with a contingency involving intervention
for socially significant behavior, thus excluding transla-
tional studies. For example, Gifford et al. (2022) was
excluded from the review because the researchers used a
concurrent-chains arrangement to show that choice could
be shifted by pairing conditions with higher quality stim-
uli. The initial search yielded 355 articles across all jour-
nals. From the 355 initial search results, a preliminary
examination was conducted by reviewing each article’s
abstract, the full text, or both. We used the search func-
tion to search “concurrent chain.”Articles were excluded
if they (a) did not include human subjects or (b) did not
include the word “concurrent chain”as a part of the
study’s intervention (e.g., articles that included “concur-
rent”such as in a “nonconcurrent multiple baseline”or
“chain”such as in “response chain”were excluded). Two
hundred seventy-six articles were removed following the
preliminary examination to yield a total of 82 articles.
All three authors independently reviewed the remain-
ing 82 articles to determine whether they met inclusion
criteria. Intercoder agreement was assessed for 100% of
the 82 articles that were screened. Reviewers scored either
a“yes”or “no”for each article. A “yes”was scored if the
article met all inclusion criteria. A “no”was scored if
the article did not meet all criteria. Exact agreement was
80%. All three authors met and discussed the articles for
which a disagreement occurred, and they agreed on inclu-
sion or exclusion of those articles based on the inclusion
criteria. Of the 16 articles with a disagreement, six were
ultimately included. Most disagreements were a result of
studies that used a concurrent-chains arrangement to
evaluate stimuli used in the intervention (e.g., the type of
reinforcer used) rather than the intervention itself. It
should be noted that other areas of research have used
concurrent-chains arrangements to assess choice in the con-
text of preference assessments for stimuli (e.g., Basile
et al., 2021; Castelluccio & Johnson, 2019). For example,
Basile et al. (2021) compared paired vs. multiple stimulus-
preference-assessment formats to assess preference for the
same putative consequences. The preference assessments
were arranged as concurrent chains (i.e., initial-link stimuli
were photos of each item and the terminal link was access
to the item or activity). Those articles were not included in
this review because the terminal link did not include expo-
sure to an intervention (but rather access to the stimuli).
Two of the 82 articles used a group-oriented concurrent-
chains arrangement to assess preference for variations of
the Good Behavior Game (Peltier et al., 2023; Vargo &
Brown, 2020). Although these are worthwhile applications
of a concurrent-chains arrangement, these articles were not
included in the present review. In these group arrangements,
students selected an initial link. Teachers implemented
“preference voting,”and the condition that had the highest
number of selections was implemented as the terminal link
at that time. Therefore, the selection of an initial link did
not produce access to the matched terminal link for each
individual directly after the selection of an initial link. One
limitation of this search method was that we did not assess
intercoder agreement for the preliminary examination of
the 355 articles.
Forty-four of the 82 articles met all of the inclusion
criteria. We also screened the references of the 44 articles
that met inclusion criteria. No additional articles were
identified that met inclusion criteria. All three authors
reviewed the 44 articles and determined (a) the population
for whom the concurrent-chains arrangement was arranged
and (b) procedural similarities and differences in the
implementation of the concurrent-chains arrangement
across articles. Following this review, themes that
emerged included the concurrent-chains arrangement
implemented with recipients of behavior-change inter-
ventions (e.g., clients) or behavior-change agents (e.g.,
caregivers or staff). In addition, the authors identified cate-
gories of procedural variations across articles including how
the initial-link stimuli were selected; whether studies used a
control condition, guided-exposure trials, and discrimina-
tion test prior to choice trials; and how studies determined
criteria to indicate a preference.
2AUTEN ET AL.
19383703, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jaba.1059 by Saint Barnabas Medical Center, Wiley Online Library on [01/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
TABLE 1 Concurrent-chains arrangements used in skill acquisition.
Authors Participants (Age) Diagnosis Intervention Initial links Control
Stimuli
preference
a
Argueta et al. (2019) 1 child (7) ASD Effects of FR and VR token exchange production
schedules on skill acquisition
Colored cards Y N
Bacotti et al. (2021) 22 undergraduate
students (18–22)
N/A Types of feedback Vocal choice N N
Bergmann et al. (2023) 2 children (5, 6) ASD Auditory and visual stimuli on the acquisition of
tacts
Colored cards N Y
Bloom et al. (2020) 4 children (9, 10) N/A Prose vs. song lyric self-instruction Cards N N
Borrero et al. (2022) 4 children (5–10) N/A, ASD,
Other
b
Preference for bite sequences Colored poster
boards
YY
Cariveau et al. (2022) 1 adolescent (14) ASD, ID Mand training with different communication
modalities
Communication
modality stimuli
YN
Chance et al. (2021) 3 children (5, 9, 10) ASD Conditioning procedures to condition vocalizations
as reinforcers
Colored cards Y Y
Cortes & Wiskow (2022) 2 children (2, 3) N/A General, descriptive, or general +descriptive praise
on skill acquisition tacts
Shape cards N Y
Donaldson et al. (2018) 4 adults (no report) N/A Good Behavior Game Vocal choice Y N
Falligant et al. (2020) 3 children (8, 10) ASD, ADHD Accumulated vs. distributed token exchange schedule Vocal choice; picture
card
YN
Ferguson et al. (2022) 4 children (7–12) ASD Equivalence-based instruction vs. progressive DTT
to teach targets
Colored cards N Y
Frank-Crawford et al. (2019) 5 adolescents/ adults
(13–24)
ASD, IDD Accumulated vs. distributed SR+during DTT Cards Y N
Galizio et al. (2020) 3 children (3, 4) ASD Use of lag schedules to increase variability in play Colored cards N Y
Halbur et al. (2020) 4 adult caregivers (33–
43)
N/A Prompt types during skill acquisition tasks Written instruction N N
Hardesty et al. (2023) 3 children (7, 11) N/A Synchronous vs. noncontingent SR+delivery during
task engagement
Colored stimuli on a
screen
YN
Holmes et al. (2022) 4 children (preschool) N/A Token exchange systems Token board Y Y
Jessel et al. (2020) 4 children (9–16) ASD Error correction procedures Colored cards Y N
Joachim & Carroll (2018) 4 children (4, 6, 9) N/A Effects of DTT, accumulated SR+, distributed SR+,
and no consequence on skill acquisition tasks
Colored cards Y Y
Leaf et al. (2019) 4 children (5–9) ASD Prompt types during skill acquisition tasks Colored stimuli Y N
Lozy et al. (2020) 6 children (3, 4) N/A Comparing paired kinesthetic movements and
traditional drills on letter-sound acquisition
Vocal choice N N
Luck et al. (2018) 6 teachers (26–52), 4
children (4–7)
ASD, N/A Feedback Colored cards Y N
Mandel et al. (2022) 3 children (3, 5, 10) ASD, Other
b
Picture, video, and in vivo models for tact acquisition Symbols N N
(Continues)
REVIEW OF CONCURRENT-CHAINS ARRANGEMENTS 3
19383703, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jaba.1059 by Saint Barnabas Medical Center, Wiley Online Library on [01/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Authors Participants (Age) Diagnosis Intervention Initial links Control
Stimuli
preference
a
Markham et al. (2020a) 3 children (4, 5) ASD Prompt types within DTT Colored cards Y Y
Markham et al. (2020b) 3 children (4, 5) ASD Prompt types during conditional discrimination
training
Colored cards Y Y
Matter et al. (2020) 4 children (4) N/A Tact vs. mixed training Picture cards N N
Orozco et al. (2022) 4 children (2–8) ASD Comparing modalities to teach mands Picture cards N N
Pincus et al. (2019) 3 adolescents
(16, 17, 18)
ASD, ID,
ADHD,
Other
b
Contexts on physical activity Colored cards Y N
Pisman and Luczynski (2020) 2 parent–child dyads (no
report, 3, 4)
ASD, N/A Behavioral skills training Picture cards Y N
Sivaraman et al. (2023) 6 children (6, 7, 8) and
their mothers
ASD, N/A Ethnically similar vs. different teachers to train
caregivers
Vocal choice N N
Stocco et al. (2020) 8 children/1 adult (8–14;
44)
ASD, ADHD Effects of listener engagement on problematic speech Colored cards Y N
Weyman & Sy (2018) 3 adults (19, 20, 22) ASD, ID Effects of praise on discrimination Colored cards Y Y
Note:Y=Yes; N =No; FR =fixed ratio; VR =variable ratio; DTT =discrete-trial teaching; N/A =no formal diagnosis listed; ASD =autism spectrum disorder; ADHD =attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder;
ID =intellectual disability.
a
Stimuli preference =preference assessment for initial-link stimuli conducted.
b
Other =other diagnoses including developmental delays, Ehlers–Danlos syndrome, Chromosome 4q deletion, receptive–expressive language disorder, apraxia, and deletion of chromosome 5.0, etc.
4AUTEN ET AL.
19383703, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jaba.1059 by Saint Barnabas Medical Center, Wiley Online Library on [01/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Client preference
Schwartz and Baer (1991) provided clarification on Wolf
(1978) by identifying program “consumers.”That is, con-
sumers may be indirect consumers or direct consumers.
Indirect consumers may be affected by a behavior-change
program and may subsequently have an effect on the pro-
gram, but they are not direct recipients (e.g., caregivers,
family members, teachers). Direct consumers are primary
recipients of behavior-change programs who may also
affect the behavior-change program by engaging in or
refusing to participate (e.g., clients, patients, or caregivers
participating in caregiver training). In 39 of the 44 studies
(89%), researchers evaluated the preferences of behavior-
change recipients, with a majority of these children or
adults having a diagnosis such as autism spectrum disor-
der (ASD), developmental disability (DD), intellectual
disability (ID), or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD; see Tables 1and 2). One study (Jessel et al., 2020)
evaluated both client and caregiver preference. Although
early research evaluated preference for two or more distinct
interventions (Iwata & Bailey, 1974), recent research has
expanded the use of concurrent-chains arrangements to
evaluate different components of the same intervention
(e.g., various dimensions of reinforcement).
Within the context of skill acquisition, several studies
evaluated preference for token systems (e.g., Argueta
et al., 2019; Holmes et al., 2022). For example, Argueta
et al. (2019) assessed preference for fixed-ratio versus
variable-ratio token-exchange-production schedules during
discrete-trial teaching for one child with ASD. Falligant
et al. (2020) identified the effects of response effort
and token-production scheduleonpreferenceforsche-
dules for three children. Preference for interventions
TABLE 2 Concurrent-chains arrangements used in interventions for challenging behavior.
Authors Participants/Age Diagnosis Intervention Initial links Control
Stimuli
preference
a
Briggs et al. (2018) 1 adolescent (12) ASD FCT Colored shirts N N
Chen et al. (2022) 3 children (5) ADHD, DD,
Other
b
DRA plus extinction,
accumulated vs.
distributed SR+
Colored cards Y Y
Cividini-Motta et al. (2019) 3 children (5, 8) ASD Response interruption and
redirection, DRA, and
both on stereotypy and
appropriate
vocalizations
Colored cards N N
Frank-Crawford et al. (2018) 9 children (no report) ID Effects of preference
assessments on
compliance
Cards Y N
Frank-Crawford et al. (2021) 8 children and
adolescents (8–
18)
ASD, ADHD,
ID, Other
b
Accumulated vs. distributed
SR+
Cards Y N
Fulton et al. (2020) 3 children/
adolescents (8,
11, 13)
ASD, ADHD DRA, accumulated vs.
distributed SR+
Colored worksheets,
colored scrubs
YN
Irwin Helvey et al. (2023) 3 children (3, 6, 14) ASD, ADHD,
Other
b
Functional vs.
nonfunctional stimuli
during treatment
Colored vests Y N
Llinas et al. (2022) 2 children (2, 3) ASD NCR Colored posters N N
Lugo et al. (2019) 1 child (4) ASD Pairing prior to DTT Therapist pictures Y N
Nuhu et al. (2022) 3 children (4, 5, 6) ASD, DD,
Other
b
FCT Shapes Y Y
Owen et al. (2021) 3 children (3, 7) ASD, Other
b
DNRA, EE, NCE Colored smocks Y N
Porter & Sy (2020) 3 children (5, 10, 11) ASD, ADHD,
Other
b
Delayed vs. immediate task
completion
Sitting in a chair N N
Robinson & St. Peter (2019) 3 children (10) ADHD, ID,
Asperger
syndrome,
Other
b
Accumulated vs. distributed
SR+
Colored cards Y N
Note:Y=Yes; N =No; FR =fixed ratio; VR =variable ratio; DTT =discrete-trial teaching; N/A =no formal diagnosis listed; ASD =autism spectrum disorder;
ADHD =attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; ID =intellectual disability.
a
Stimuli preference =preference assessment for initial-link stimuli conducted.
b
Other =other diagnoses including developmental delays, Ehlers–Danlos syndrome, Chromosome 4q deletion, receptive–expressive language disorder, apraxia, and
deletion of chromosome 5.0, etc.
REVIEW OF CONCURRENT-CHAINS ARRANGEMENTS 5
19383703, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jaba.1059 by Saint Barnabas Medical Center, Wiley Online Library on [01/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
(accumulated and distributed reinforcement) in the
context of skill acquisition has also been evaluated
(e.g., Frank-Crawford et al., 2019; Joachim & Carroll,
2018). Concurrent-chains assessments have also been used
to assess preference for prompt type (e.g., Markham
et al., 2020a), communication modalities within mand train-
ing (e.g., Cariveau et al., 2022), variability within play
(e.g., Galizio et al., 2020), and appropriate speech
(e.g., Stocco et al., 2020).
Other studies included concurrent-chains assessments
that researchers implemented to identify preference for
interventions targeting challenging behavior. These include
evaluating preference for different interventions (e.g.,
Owen et al., 2021), different reinforcers within similar
treatments (e.g., Irwin Helvey et al., 2023), schedule-
thinning procedures (e.g., Briggs et al., 2018), or reinforcer
distribution (e.g., Chen et al., 2022;Fultonetal.,2020).
Overall, the literature suggests that concurrent-chains
arrangements have been a simple yet beneficial way to
objectively measure intervention choice among recipi-
ents of behavior-change programming. However, we
noted several procedural variations across studies,
which will be discussed in a subsequent section.
Caregiver and staff preference
In the current review, the objective evaluation of care-
giver or staff preference using a concurrent-chains
arrangement was less common. In five of the 44 articles
(11%), researchers used a concurrent-chains arrangement
to evaluate caregiver or staff choice. Donaldson et al.
(2018) measured teacher preference for the Good Behav-
ior Game, and Bacotti et al. (2021) evaluated staff prefer-
ence for reinforcer types. Halbur et al. (2020) used both
an indirect assessment (i.e., a treatment acceptability
questionnaire) and a direct assessment (i.e., a concurrent-
chains procedure) to evaluate both caregiver acceptability
and preference for prompting methods used with their
children.
Although a caregiver may report an intervention to
be acceptable, they may choose not to implement it
(Gabor et al., 2016). Further, exposure to the interven-
tion procedures can influence preference. For example,
just one of the five caregivers in Gabor et al. (2016) pre-
ferred the intervention (as identified through a
concurrent-chains arrangement) that they rated as highly
acceptable before having experience implementing that
intervention. Similarly, Luck et al. (2018) found that the
results of the concurrent-chains assessment of teacher
choice for different types of feedback differed when com-
pared with their stated preferences on a social-validity
survey. The results of these studies highlight how subjec-
tive measures of choice (e.g., acceptability questionnaires)
and objective measures (e.g., concurrent chains) may dif-
fer. Although caregivers or other stakeholders may indi-
cate a preference for a type of intervention on a survey,
preferences to implement those interventions may shift
after exposure to those interventions. In addition, prefer-
ence for one type of intervention may not necessarily pre-
dict adherence to that intervention in other contexts.
Future research should explicitly evaluate how exposure to
intervention implementation may affect objectively
assessed preference. Moreover, researchers should investi-
gate the effects that preference has on procedural fidelity.
Procedural variations
Initial-link stimuli
In applied arrangements, initial-link stimuli are distinct
stimuli (e.g., colors or shapes) that are correlated with
each condition. In 13 (29%) of the reviewed articles,
researchers evaluated preference for the stimuli arranged
in the initial link to rule out the potential of other variables
(e.g., color preference) influencing selections (e.g., Galizio
et al., 2020;Nuhuetal.,2022). It should be noted that a
preference assessment for initial-link stimuli was not appli-
cable for some articles (e.g., in Halbur et al., 2020,the
initial-link stimuli were written instructions for the inter-
ventions). When preference was evaluated, researchers
commonly conducted a brief preference assessment
(e.g., multiple stimulus without replacement). In some
studies, moderately preferred colored stimuli were used
as initial-link stimuli (e.g., Chen et al., 2022; Markham
et al., 2020b). In other studies, highly preferred colored
stimuli were assigned to the control condition
(e.g., Holmes et al., 2022; Owen et al., 2021).
Control condition
Including a control condition in a concurrent-chains
arrangement is recommended to help distinguish between
indiscriminate responding and no preference or indiffer-
ence (Hanley et al., 2005). Sixteen (36%) of the reviewed
studies did not include a control (e.g., Briggs et al., 2018;
Galizio et al., 2020; Halbur et al., 2020;Llinasetal.,2022;
Lozy et al., 2020); one study (Irwin Helvey et al., 2023)
only included a control for one participant. In four of
these studies, a preference could not be established for at
least one participant due to responses being allocated
across multiple initial links. That is, there was no consis-
tent selection of the same stimulus (Bergmann
et al., 2023; Galizio et al., 2020; Lozy et al., 2020;
Mandel et al., 2022). Two of these studies indicated a
lack of a control condition as a limitation (i.e., Bergmann
et al., 2023; Galizio et al., 2020). Therefore, it may be use-
ful to include a control from the outset of the assessment.
In the control condition included by Hanley et al.
(1997), there were no differential consequences for any
responding (i.e., both appropriate and challenging behav-
ior were placed on extinction). Some studies in the
6AUTEN ET AL.
19383703, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jaba.1059 by Saint Barnabas Medical Center, Wiley Online Library on [01/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
current review that included a control condition similarly
arranged it using extinction (e.g., Nuhu et al., 2022;
Owen et al., 2021); other studies arranged the control as
a baseline condition. For example, Fulton et al. (2020)
presented initial-link stimuli for accumulated and distrib-
uted reinforcement conditions in addition to a baseline
control during which challenging behavior resulted in
escape from instruction and compliance resulted in praise.
Similarly, Chen et al. (2022) included a baseline-control
condition in which inappropriate mealtime behavior
resulted in escape. Although arranging a baseline control
condition may offer important information regarding pref-
erence for treatments for challenging behavior, using base-
line contingencies as a control condition may not be
feasible in some cases (e.g., if challenging behavior is too
dangerous to reinforce).
Guided exposure and discrimination tests
Guided-exposure trials involve the participant experienc-
ing the contingencies for each intervention individually
before making a choice between all initial-link stimuli.
Twenty-nine of the 44 articles (66%) explicitly stated that
guided-exposure trials were conducted prior to choice tri-
als. It is unclear whether guided-exposure trials directly
preceding choice sessions result in discriminated responding
compared with arrangements during which stimuli were
included during sessions. For three of the 13 articles that
did not arrange for guided-exposure trial, the researchers
did not identify a preference for at least one participant.
However, it is unclear whether this was because of prob-
lems with discrimination or because there was no prefer-
ence across the conditions. Variations of guided-exposure
trials included delivering written instructions of the contin-
gencies with exposure (e.g., Halbur et al., 2020), vocally
describing the contingencies to the participant (e.g., Frank-
Crawford et al., 2018;Stoccoetal.,2020), or only using
guided exposure (e.g., Joachim & Carroll, 2018;Llinas
et al., 2022). In addition, the number of guided-exposure
trials varied across studies. Markham et al. (2020a) exposed
participants to each of the four conditions five times,
whereas Argueta et al. (2019) conducted two guided-
exposure trials for each response option.
An interesting procedural variation was the use of a
discrimination test in which participants were asked to
vocally describe the contingencies (e.g., Briggs et al., 2018;
Stocco et al., 2020), answer comprehension questions
(e.g., “What happens when you get this token?”; Holmes
et al., 2022), or receptively identify initial-link cards (e.g.,
Frank-Crawford et al., 2019). Nine of the 44 articles (20%)
included a discrimination test. Three of the nine articles
that included a discrimination test failed to identify a pref-
erence for at least one participant (i.e., Bergmann
et al., 2023; Galizio et al., 2020; Owen et al., 2021).
However, Bergmann et al. (2023) also did not include a
control. In Galizio et al. (2020), discrimination training
consisted of a match-to-sample procedure rather than
requiring participants to identify the contingencies.
Frank-Crawford et al. (2019) did not conduct a
concurrent-chains arrangement with individuals who
could not correctly identify the contingencies during the
discrimination test. No research to date has evaluated
the effects of different types of discrimination assess-
ments directly. It may be that more involved discrimina-
tion training and assessments are needed depending on the
skills of participants. Researchers may also consider evalu-
ating the role of vocally describing the contingencies to
participants in combination with a guided exposure to the
contingencies. Another area of research may be to evalu-
ate whether clear choices emerge earlier in the concurrent
chains as a function of the number of guided-exposure
trials.
Criteria for determining preference
In 27 of the 44 studies (61%), the authors displayed the
concurrent-chains results as graphed data depicting
cumulative selections across initial links. Six studies
(e.g., Llinas et al., 2022; Sivaraman et al., 2023) only
reported which option was chosen most frequently.
However, reporting only a percentage or proportion of
selections may be misleading. For example, Galizio et al.
(2020) reported proportion of choice, which indicated
slight preferences when 60% (12 of 20) of choices were
allocated to one intervention for two participants. How-
ever, the graphed data demonstrated that both partici-
pants continued to switch between the interventions even
toward the latter half of the evaluation, suggesting that
consistent preference had not emerged. The remaining
11 studies typically graphed data as frequency of selec-
tions or percentage of selections overall.
Participants may initially switch between conditions
before a clear preference emerges (e.g., Nuhu et al., 2022;
Stocco et al., 2020). Eleven studies (25%) used specific
criteria for the number of times a condition must be
selected relative to others to indicate a preference. For
example, Owen et al. (2021) ended choice trials after
either 30 selections or after a participant selected the
same condition for six consecutive sessions. Argueta
et al. (2019) ended choice trials after either 20 selections
had been made or the participant selected one condition
four times more than the others. Jessel et al. (2020)sug-
gested a preference was indicated when a participant
selected a condition for three consecutive sessions.
Sometimes, researchers did not set specific criteria but
instead used visual inspection to determine when
responding was consistent toward one condition, focus-
ing on choices toward the end of the assessment
(e.g., Cariveau et al., 2022; Joachim et al., 2018).
A hierarchy of preferences for more than one interven-
tion can also be assessed via a concurrent-chains arrange-
ment by repeating the concurrent-chains arrangement
REVIEW OF CONCURRENT-CHAINS ARRANGEMENTS 7
19383703, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jaba.1059 by Saint Barnabas Medical Center, Wiley Online Library on [01/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
without the initially identified highly preferred intervention.
For example, Irwin Helvey et al. (2023) evaluated prefer-
ence for interventions for challenging behavior. One par-
ticipant (Corey) was exposed to four different conditions.
Corey initially demonstrated a clear preference for one
condition. The researchers then removed this condition
and evaluated preference between the remaining condi-
tions and a preference emerged for a different condition.
Similarly, when a clear preference emerged, Halbur et al.
(2020) removed the highest preferred prompting strategy
to identify which among the remaining conditions would
be considered a moderately preferred prompting strategy.
Both studies highlight the relativity of preference.
Although an individual may choose to experience one
intervention instead of others, this does not necessarily
mean the intervention(s) that is not chosen is nonpre-
ferred. Furthermore, identifying moderately preferred
interventions may have important implications when
caregiver and client preferences for interventions do not
match.
Ethical considerations
Ethical considerations can emerge when the most pre-
ferred intervention is not the most efficient or effective,
when clients and their caregivers prefer different interven-
tions, or when clients prefer baseline or control conditions
(Dozier et al., 2007), suggesting a possible preference for
no intervention at all (e.g., Holmes et al., 2022). In some
studies (e.g., Argueta et al., 2019;Chenetal.,2022; Stocco
et al., 2020), interventions were similar in efficacy but cli-
ents showed a strong preference for one treatment over
another. In these cases, clinicians should generally imple-
ment the highest preferred treatment if that intervention
can be implemented with high fidelity. Additional research
is needed to determine the effect that choice-based
interventions have on durable behavior change when
fidelity errors occur (Kestner et al., 2023). Notably, in
Frank-Crawford et al. (2019), one participant showed
preference for the least efficient intervention. Discrepancies
between efficacy, acceptability, and preference may be
problematic because although behavior analysts should
consider stakeholder preference in treatment, clients have a
right to an effective intervention. Typically, choice between
interventions is not assessed if one intervention is not effica-
cious. However, there is little guidance on choice between
two different interventions that vary only slightly in effi-
cacy. Some researchers have begun evaluating methods for
shifting preferences among interventions when preference,
efficacy, or acceptability do not align. For example, Ward-
Horner et al. (2017) assessed preference for continuous and
discontinuous reinforcer arrangements via a concurrent-
chains arrangement for two participants. Both participants
displayed an initial preference for the continuous arrange-
ment (i.e., longer duration of work time followed by a lon-
ger duration of reinforcer access). However, the researchers
influenced preference by manipulating reinforcer magnitude
and quality to favor the discontinuous arrangement. There-
after, choices were allocated to the discontinuous
arrangement.
Although both client and caregiver preference or
acceptability should be considered, there may be differ-
ences in preference between clients and caregivers. Chen
et al. (2022) found that all caregivers rated an accumu-
lated token condition as highly acceptable, yet two par-
ticipants preferred the distributed condition. One option
is to resolve mismatched preferences by continuing to
assess a given intervention with new modifications while
preserving efficacy until both client and caregiver demon-
strate the same preference (Owen et al., 2021). For cases
in which individuals choose interventions that are less
efficient or nonpreferred by other stakeholders, it may be
important to assess whether a client finds a given inter-
vention less preferred as opposed to aversive. The use of
a control condition would help inform this distinction.
When a client shows a preference for a control or
baseline condition, current recommendations for pro-
ceeding are somewhat unclear. Selecting a noninterven-
tion condition and the intervention condition equally
toward the end of the assessment may indicate a lack of
discrimination. Displaying a preference for control or a
baseline condition may also indicate that the client is not
discriminating between the conditions. However, it could
indicate a choice to not engage in an intervention option.
Clinicians may be faced with balancing the right to
habilitation and the right to choose (Bannerman et al.,
1990) because clients sometimes make choices that do not
align with treatment goals. This is especially relevant in
the context of treating challenging behavior, as choosing
to engage in challenging behavior is not an appropriate
choice (e.g., Kevin in Fulton et al., 2020). In such cases,
clinicians might consider how conditions can be modified
to promote a choice that includes intervention (Fulton
et al., 2020). Relatedly, objectively measured choice for
intervention versus no intervention is one method that
can be used to determine whether a client assents to a
given interventions (Morris et al., in press). However, a
limitation of a concurrent-chains arrangement is that cli-
ents could be exposed to interventions repeatedly that may
be nonpreferred or aversive. Additional research could
contribute to this discussion by evaluating alternative ways
to evaluate choice in behavior-analytic interventions.
DISCUSSION
Overall, there were several procedural variations across
articles (e.g., discrimination tests, the use of a control
condition). However, none of the studies reviewed
directly evaluated the effect of these variations on
responding. For example, it is unclear whether a discrimi-
nation test leads to quicker discriminated responding.
Similarly, although different initial-link stimuli were used
8AUTEN ET AL.
19383703, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jaba.1059 by Saint Barnabas Medical Center, Wiley Online Library on [01/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
across studies, only some studies evaluated preference for
stimuli arranged in the initial link; this may be an impor-
tant procedural variation to increase the likelihood that
choice of initial-link stimuli is not influenced by a prefer-
ence for the stimulus associated with the initial-link
rather than the terminal-link contingencies. Evaluating
the effects of these variations of a concurrent-chains
arrangement appears to be a worthwhile area for future
research.
According to the definition of direct and indirect con-
sumers suggested by Schwartz and Baer (1991), in all of
the reviewed studies choice was assessed for direct con-
sumers (e.g., recipients of behavior-change programs
including caregivers or staff exposed to training for
behavior-change programs). Therefore, it appears that
concurrent-chains arrangements may be most useful for
assessing choice for direct consumers and other measures
of social validity (e.g., questionnaires or rating scales)
could be more appropriate measures for indirect con-
sumers who do not experience behavior-change protocols
or programs. Researchers could consider evaluating how
caregiver preference for intervention influences long-term
results and determining best practice when caregiver pref-
erence and client preference do not match, given that
both caregivers and clients may be direct consumers of
the intervention. Importantly, Schwartz and Baer wrote
that direct consumers may influence interventions by
engaging in selective or generalized refusal to participate.
Thus, caregivers may prevent access to an intervention
for clients if they do not prefer to implement it. Clearer
recommendations may be needed in situations in which
clients prefer an intervention that is demonstrated to be
less effective or ineffective.
Although we attempted to systematically review the
literature to identify all articles that met the inclusion
criteria, it is possible that researchers have conducted
concurrent-chains arrangements and have used different
terminology (e.g., concurrent operants). Those articles
would not have been included in the current review.
Reviews with a wider search parameter would be neces-
sary to evaluate variations of the concurrent-chains
arrangement. We conducted our search by entering the
keyword “concurrent chain”into the search algorithm for
each journal. That is, we did not use a database
(e.g., PsychINFO,PubMed) to conduct our search. This
should be noted as a potential limitation because it is pos-
sible that each journal has a different search algorithm,
which may have led to underidentifying articles. Future
reviews may also wish to focus on the use of
concurrent-chains assessments in the context of
stimulus-preference assessments. It should be noted
that a selection of an initial link in a concurrent-chains
arrangement is only a potential indicator of preference
(Ferguson et al., 2022). Other variables may influence
choice, such as a preference to experience nonpreferred
conditions before more preferred conditions
(e.g., Borrero et al., 2022; Ferguson et al., 2022).
The current study was not intended to identify best
practice recommendations but rather to review the litera-
ture and provide an overview of how the concurrent-
chains arrangement has been implemented in recent
years. However, based on the literature a few proposed
recommendations may include (a) incorporating a con-
trol condition (Hanley et al., 2005) and (b) modifying
interventions if caregiver and client preference are mis-
matched (Owen et al., 2021). We recommend visually
inspecting data to allow changes in choices to be
observed over time because this is an important compo-
nent of a concurrent-chains arrangement. Additional
research can contribute to these recommendations by
directly assessing the procedural variations mentioned in
this review.
In keeping with the BACB Ethics Code, relevant fac-
tors such as client and stakeholder preference should be
considered when implementing behavior-change inter-
ventions, and concurrent-chains assessments are the most
common method for objectively doing so. Although there
is a growing body of literature examining choice in
behavior-analytic interventions, a great deal of research
remains to be done to assess the effects of client choice on
intervention. For example, it may not be appropriate for
individuals who engage in dangerous behavior to have
the choice to “opt out”of intervention for such behavior
if they do not prefer the effective intervention. Addition-
ally, insurance companies may not reimburse for services
during which participants opted out of treatment (Keung
Hui, 2023). Therefore, it is necessary to understand
more about the parameters of choice for intervention
(e.g., when it is warranted, when it is safe). It may be
common in general clinical practice to offer “low stakes”
choices throughout the day, such as the choice between
taking a break on the playground or in a treatment room.
This choice may be identified as “low stakes”in that it is
often viewed as less likely to result in degradation of
treatment efficacy. However, other choices could be
“higher stakes.”For example, offering a client the choice
of accumulated versus distributed reinforcement without
knowing the effects of either may be “higher stakes”if
providing accumulated reinforcers results in a breakdown
in treatment efficacy. Future research should be designed
to determine how to guide clinicians on incorporating
choice appropriately to empower clients to make choices
throughout their interventions without negatively affecting
progress toward intervention goals. Using a concurrent-
chains arrangement to evaluate choice between different
interventions is only one way to incorporate choice in a cli-
ent’s intervention plan. There are many examples of other
studies that have used concurrent-chains arrangements to
present clients with an opportunity to make a choice.
There may be barriers that make it difficult for practi-
tioners to assess preference via a concurrent-chains
arrangement. For example, it may be unclear to practi-
tioners when a concurrent-chains arrangement is appropri-
ate to assess preference (Ferguson et al., 2019). If an
REVIEW OF CONCURRENT-CHAINS ARRANGEMENTS 9
19383703, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jaba.1059 by Saint Barnabas Medical Center, Wiley Online Library on [01/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
individual has difficulty attending to stimuli, difficulties
with discrimination may confound results. However, strat-
egies for teaching discrimination should be assessed prior
to implementing concurrent-chains arrangements as a
means of measuring preference. Finally, the current review
may not be indicative of how often choice between inter-
ventions is assessed in practice. If a preference does not
emerge or an individual selects a control condition,
researchers may be less likely to publish these findings
(i.e., the “file drawer”problem). Although procedural vari-
ations require additional research to evaluate their relative
influence on the efficiency and validity of concurrent-
chains assessments, the literature provides clinicians with
numerous examples of the use of this arrangement in the
context of skill acquisition, reducing challenging behavior,
and (to a lesser extent) evaluating caregiver and staff
preference.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
ETHICS APPROVAL
No human or animal subjects were involved in the pro-
duction of this article.
ORCID
Emma M. Auten https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1076-0284
Carole Van Camp https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9709-
459X
REFERENCES
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the
review.
*Argueta, T., Leon, Y., & Brewer, A. (2019). Exchange schedules in
token economies: A preliminary investigation of second-order
schedule effects. Behavioral Interventions,34(2), 280–292. https://
doi.org/10.1002/bin.1661
Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (2022). Ethics code for behavior
analysts.https://www.bacb.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Ethics-
Code-for-Behavior-Analysts-201228.pdf
*Bacotti, J. K., Grauerholz-Fisher, E., Morris, S. L., & Vollmer, T. R.
(2021). Identifying the relation between feedback preferences and
performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,54(2), 668–
683. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.804
Bannerman, D. J., Sheldon, J. B., Sherman, J. A., & Harchik, A. E.
(1990). Balancing the right to habilitation with the right to per-
sonal liberties: The rights of people with developmental disabilities
to eat too many doughnuts and take a nap. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis,23(1), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1990.
23-79
Basile, C. D., Tiger, J. H., & Lillie, M. A. (2021). Comparing paired-
stimulus and multiple-stimulus concurrent-chains preference
assessments: Consistency, correspondence, and efficiency. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis,54(4), 1488–1502. https://doi.org/10.
1002/jaba.856
*Bergmann, S., Niland, H., Otero, M., Gavidia, V. L., & Kodak, T.
(2023). Teaching children with autism spectrum disorder to tact
auditory stimuli: A replication. Behavioral Interventions,38(3),
636–652. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1936
*Bloom, L. B., Kettering, T. L., & Walker, D. (2020). A comparison of
song-lyric and prose self-instruction procedures for increasing
novel skills in children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
53(1), 167–174. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.548
*Borrero, J. C., Rosenblum, A. K., Castillo, M. I., Spann, M. W., &
Borrero, C. S. (2022). Do children who exhibit food selectivity pre-
fer to save the best (bite) for last? Behavioral Interventions,37(2),
529–544. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1845
Briggs, A. M., & Mitteer, D. R. (2022). Updated strategies for making
regular contact with the scholarly literature. Behavior Analysis in
Practice,15(2), 541–552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-021-
00590-8
*Briggs, A. M., Akers, J. S., Greer, B. D., Fisher, W. W., &
Retzlaff, B. J. (2018). Systematic changes in preference for
schedule-thinning arrangements as a function of relative reinforce-
ment density. Behavior Modification,42(4), 472–497. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0145445517742
*Cariveau, T., Hunt, K., Robbins, H., & Brown, A. R. (2022). Prefer-
ence for alternative communication modality based on reinforcer
quality and availability. Behavior Modification,46(4), 799–818.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445521992308
Castelluccio, N. T., & Johnson, C. (2019). Using stimulus preference
assessments to identify preferred break environments. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis,52(3), 772–787. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jaba.567
*Chance, S., Cividini-Motta, C., & Livingston, C. (2021). Assessing the
effects of observational conditioning and response-contingent pair-
ing on the vocalizations of children with autism spectrum disorder.
The Analysis of Verbal Behavior,37(2), 194–216. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s40616-021-00157-2
*Chen, E., Borrero, C. S. W., Frank-Crawford, M. A., & Borrero, J. C.
(2022). Accumulated-and distributed-reinforcer arrangements in
the treatment of challenging mealtime behavior. Behavioral Inter-
ventions,37(4), 1058–1079. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1899
*Cividini-Motta, C., Garcia, A. R., Livingston, C., & MacNaul, H. L.
(2019). The effect of response interruption and redirection with
and without a differential reinforcement of alternative behavior
component on stereotypy and appropriate responses. Behavioral
Interventions,34(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1654
*Cortes, A., & Wiskow, K. M. (2022). Further evaluation of general
and descriptive praise statements on the acquisition of tacts.
Behavioral Interventions,37(4), 1254–1263. https://doi.org/10.1002/
bin.1903
*Donaldson, J. M., Matter, A. L., & Wiskow, K. M. (2018). Feasibility
of and teacher preference for student-led implementation of the
good behavior game in early elementary classrooms. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis,51(1), 118–129. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jaba.432
Dozier, C. L., Vollmer, T. R., Borrero, J. C., Borrero, C. S.,
Rapp, J. T., Bourret, J., & Gutierrez, A. (2007). Assessment of
preference for behavioral treatment versus baseline conditions.
Behavioral Interventions,22(3), 245–261. https://doi.org/10.1002/
bin.241
*Falligant, J. M., Pence, S. T., & Bedell, S. B. (2020). Preferences for
token exchange-production schedules: Effects of task difficulty
and token-production schedules. Behavioral Interventions,35(2),
234–248. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1706
Ferguson, J. L., Cihon, J. H., Leaf, J. B., Van Meter, S. M.,
McEachin, J., & Leaf, R. (2019). Assessment of social validity
trends in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis.European Jour-
nal of Behavior Analysis,20(1), 146–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15021149.2018.1534771
*Ferguson, J. L., Cihon, J. H., Majeski, M. J., Milne, C. M.,
Leaf, J. B., McEachin, J., & Leaf, R. (2022). Toward efficiency
and effectiveness: Comparing equivalence-based instruction to
progressive discrete trial teaching. Behavior Analysis in Practice,
15(4), 1296–1313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-022-00687-8
*Frank-Crawford, M. A., Castillo, M. I., & DeLeon, I. G. (2018). Does
preference rank predict substitution for the reinforcer for problem
10 AUTEN ET AL.
19383703, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jaba.1059 by Saint Barnabas Medical Center, Wiley Online Library on [01/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
behavior? A behavioral economic analysis. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis,51(2), 276–282. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.452
*Frank-Crawford, M. A., Borrero, J. C., Newcomb, E. T., Chen, T., &
Schmidt, J. D. (2019). Preference for and efficacy of accumulated
and distributed response–reinforcer arrangements during skill
acquisition. Journal of Behavioral Education,28(2), 227–257.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-018-09312-7
*Frank-Crawford, M. A., Borrero, J. C., Newcomb, E. T., Doan, T.,
Fisher, A., & Rooker, G. W. (2021). Accumulated and distributed
response–reinforcer arrangements during the treatment of escape-
maintained problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analy-
sis,54(4), 1566–1585. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.870
*Fulton, C. J., Tiger, J. H., Meitzen, H. M., & Effertz, H. M. (2020). A
comparison of accumulated and distributed reinforcement periods
with children exhibiting escape-maintained problem behavior.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,53(2), 782–795. https://doi.
org/10.1002/jaba.622
Gabor, A. M., Fritz, J. N., Roath, C. T., Rothe, B. R., &
Gourley, D. A. (2016). Caregiver preference for reinforcement-
based interventions for problem behavior maintained by positive
reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,49(2), 215–
227. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.286
*Galizio, A., Higbee, T. S., & Odum, A. L. (2020). Choice for rein-
forced behavioral variability in children with autism spectrum dis-
order. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,113(3),
495–514. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.591
Gifford, M. R., Drifke, M. A., Tiger, J. H., & Caldwell, R. K. (2022).
Shifting preferences for choice-making opportunities through his-
tories of differential reinforcer immediacy. The Psychological
Record,72(2), 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-020-00452-9
*Halbur, M. E., Kodak, T., Wood, R., & Corrigan, E. (2020). An eval-
uation of parent preference for prompting procedures. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis,53(2), 707–726. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jaba.616
Hanley, G. P. (2010). Toward effective and preferred programming: A
case for the objective measurement of social validity with recipi-
ents of behavior-change programs. Behavior Analysis in Practice,
3(1), 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391754
Hanley, G. P., Piazza, C. C., Fisher, W. W., Contrucci, S. A., &
Maglieri, K. A. (1997). Evaluation of client preference for
function-based treatment packages. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis,30(3), 459–473. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1997.30-459
Hanley, G. P., Piazza, C. C., Fisher, W. W., & Maglieri, K. A. (2005).
On the effectiveness of and preference for punishment and extinc-
tion components of function-based interventions. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis,38(1), 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1901/
jaba.2005.6-04
*Hardesty, E. M., Lerman, D. C., & Hardee, J. L. (2023). A compari-
son of synchronous and noncontingent stimulus delivery on task
engagement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,56(3), 664–673.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.986
*Holmes, S. C., Lozy, E. D., Ruby, A. M., & Donaldson, J. M. (2022).
Effects of and preference for fixed-ratio and time-based exchange-
production schedules in a token system. Behavior Analysis: Research
and Practice,22(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1037/bar0000220
*Irwin Helvey, C., Van Camp, C. M., Mueller, C. E., & Auten, E. M.
(2023). Evaluating preference for functional and nonfunctional stim-
uli in the treatment of destructive behavior. Behavior Analysis in
Practice,16(3), 867–872. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-023-00773-5
Iwata, B. A., & Bailey, J. S. (1974). Reward versus cost token systems:
An analysis of the effects on students and teacher. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis,7(4), 567–576. https://doi.org/10.1901/
jaba.1974.7-567
*Jessel, J., Ma, S., Spartinos, J., & Villanueva, A. (2020). Transitioning
from rich to lean reinforcement as a form of error correction. Jour-
nal of Applied Behavior Analysis,53(4), 2108–2125. https://doi.org/
10.1002/jaba.717
*Joachim, B. T., & Carroll, R. A. (2018). A comparison of conse-
quences for correct responses during discrete-trial instruction.
Learning and Motivation,62,15–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.
2017.01.002
Kestner, K. M., Finch, K. R., & Kolb, R. L. (2023). Systematic review
of procedures and outcomes of choice-based interventions with
children. Education and Treatment of Children,46,77–106. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s43494-023-00088-8
Keung Hui, T. (2023, October 31). Judge rules Wake schools let special-
ed student ‘abscond’from attending classes. The News & Observer.
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/article281215353.
html
Kunze, M., Drew, C., Machalicek, W., Safer-Lichtenstein, J., &
Crowe, B. (2019). Language preference of a multilingual individ-
ual with disabilities using a speech generating device. Behavior
Analysis in Practice,12(3), 777–781. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40617-019-00379-w
*Leaf, J. B., Cihon, J. H., Ferguson, J. L., Leaf, R., & McEachin, J.
(2019). Comparing no-no prompt to flexible prompt fading to
teach expressive labels to individuals diagnosed with autism
spectrum disorder. Education and Training in Autism and Devel-
opmental Disabilities,54(3), 274–287. https://www.jstor.org/
stable/26780627
*Llinas, M., Wilder, D. A., & Walz, R. (2022). A comparison of contin-
uous, dense, and lean schedules of noncontingent access to
matched competing stimuli to reduce stereotypy. Behavioral Inter-
ventions,37(4), 660–672. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1867
*Lozy, E. D., Holmes, S. C., & Donaldson, J. M. (2020). The effects of
paired kinesthetic movements on literacy skills acquisition with
preschoolers. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,53(3), 1337–
1353. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.677
*Luck, K. M., Lerman, D. C., Wu, W. L., Dupuis, D. L., &
Hussein, L. A. (2018). A comparison of written, vocal, and video
feedback when training teachers. Journal of Behavioral Education,
27(1), 124–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-017-9279-2
*Lugo, A. M., McArdle, P. E., King, M. L., Lamphere, J. C.,
Peck, J. A., & Beck, H. J. (2019). Effects of presession pairing on
preference for therapeutic conditions and challenging behavior.
Behavior Analysis in Practice,12(1), 188–193. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s40617-018-0268-2
*Mandel, N. R., Cividini-Motta, C., & Schram, J. (2022). An evalua-
tion of the impact of stimulus mode on acquisition, maintenance,
and generalization of tacts of actions. Behavioral Interventions,
37(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1792
*Markham, V., Giles, A., & May, R. (2020a). A systematic evaluation
of prompt fading methods during conditional discrimination train-
ing. European Journal of Behavior Analysis,21(2), 255–270.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2020.1719335
*Markham, V., Giles, A., & May, R. (2020b). Evaluating efficacy and pref-
erence for prompt type during discrete-trial teaching. Behavior Modi-
fication,44(1), 49–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445518792245.
*Matter, A. L., Wiskow, K. M., & Donaldson, J. M. (2020). A compar-
ison of methods to teach foreign-language targets to young
children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,53(1), 147–166.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.545
Morris, C., Oliveira, J. P., Perrin, J., Federico, C. A., &
Martasian, P. J. (in press). Toward a further understanding of
assent. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis.
*Nuhu, N. N., & Pence, S. T. (2022). Schedule thinning following func-
tional communication training: Effects of chained and multiple
schedules. Behavior Modification,46(5), 1075–1108. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0145445521103600
*Orozco, D., Cividini-Motta, C., Campos, C., & Brolmann, H. A.
(2022). Teaching mands: Correspondence among acquisition, rec-
ommendations of the essential for living communication modality
assessment, and preference. Behavior Analysis in Practice,16(3),
812–825. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-022-00764-y
REVIEW OF CONCURRENT-CHAINS ARRANGEMENTS 11
19383703, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jaba.1059 by Saint Barnabas Medical Center, Wiley Online Library on [01/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
*Owen, T. M., Luczynski, K. C., Rodriguez, N. M., & Fisher, W. W.
(2021). Assessment of children’s and caregivers’preferences for treat-
ments for escape-maintained problem behavior. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis,54(3), 946–965. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.817
Peltier, W., Newell, K. L., Linton, E., Holmes, S. C., &
Donaldson, J. M. (2023). Effects of and preference for student-
and teacher-implemented good behavior game in early elementary
classes. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,56(1), 216–230.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.957
*Pincus, S. M., Hausman, N. L., Borrero, J. C., & Kahng, S. (2019).
Context influences preference for and level of physical activity of
adolescents with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Jour-
nal of Applied Behavior Analysis,52(3), 788–795. https://doi.org/
10.1002/jaba.582
*Pisman, M. D., & Luczynski, K. C. (2020). Caregivers can implement
play-based instruction without disrupting child preference. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis,53(3), 1702–1725. https://doi.org/10.
1002/jaba.705
*Porter, A., & Sy, J. R. (2020). Assessment and treatment of self-control
with aversive events. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,53(1),
508–521. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.604
*Robinson, N., & St. Peter, C. C. (2019). Accumulated reinforcers
increase academic responding and suppress problem behavior for
students with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis,52(4), 1076–1088. https://doi.org/10.
1002/jaba.570
Schwartz, I. S., & Baer, D. M. (1991). Social validity assessments: Is
current practice state of the art? Journal of Applied Behavior Anal-
ysis,24(2), 189–204. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1991.24-189
*Sivaraman, M., Fahmie, T., Garcia, A., Hamawe, R., & Tierman, E.
(2023). An evaluation of ethnicity-matching for caregiver tele-
health training in India. Behavior Analysis in Practice,16(2), 573–
586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-022-00738-0
*Stocco, C. S., Saavedra, I., Fakharzadeh, S., Patel, M. R., &
Thompson, R. H. (2020). A comparison of intervention for prob-
lematic speech using reinforcement with and without preferred
topics. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,54(1), 217–230.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.770
Vargo, K., & Brown, C. (2020). An evaluation of and preference for
variations of the Good Behavior Game with students with autism.
Behavioral Interventions,35(4), 560–570. https://doi.org/10.1002/
bin.1740
Ward-Horner, J. C., Muehlberger, A. O., Vedora, J., & Ross, R. K.
(2017). Effects of reinforcer magnitude and quality on preference
for response-reinforcer arrangements in young children with
autism. Behavior Analysis in Practice,10 (2), 183–188. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s40617-017-0185-9
*Weyman, J. R., & Sy, J. R. (2018). Effects of neutral and enthusiastic
praise on the rate of discrimination acquisition. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis,51(2), 335–344. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.440
Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measure-
ment or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis,11(2), 203–214. https://doi.org/10.
1901/jaba.1978.11-203
How to cite this article: Auten, E. M., Van Camp,
C., & Ferguson, A. B. (2024). A review of the
concurrent-chains arrangement to assess
intervention choice: 2018–2023. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis,1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/
jaba.1059
12 AUTEN ET AL.
19383703, 0, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jaba.1059 by Saint Barnabas Medical Center, Wiley Online Library on [01/02/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
