|
| Considerations for Embedding Choice Into Clinical Practice |
| Sunday, May 25, 2025 |
| 3:00 PM–3:50 PM |
| Marriott Marquis, M4 Level, Archives |
| Area: DDA/AUT; Domain: Applied Research |
| Chair: Cody Morris (Salve Regina University ) |
| Discussant: Stephanie M. Peterson (Western Michigan University) |
| CE Instructor: Cody Morris, Ph.D. |
| Abstract: Facilitating opportunities to empower clients to engage in choices related to their therapeutic services is an incredibly important aspect of ethical and effective behavior-analytic practice (Morris et al., 2024; Peterson et al., 2020). Although decades of research on choice in behavior analysis have been conducted, relatively little is known about the best practices for incorporating choice into assessment and intervention practices in applied behavior analysis. Thus, clinicians interested in helping maximize their clients’ opportunities to engage in choices may not have the resources necessary to do so. The purpose of this symposium is to discuss considerations for embedding choice into clinical practice based on recent literature reviews of published research on the topic choice in clinical practice. The first talk will review choice-based assessment and interventions discussed in behavior-analytic literature. The second talk will review considerations for increasing choice by reviewing studies that compared choice and no-choice conditions to evaluate the impact of choice. |
| Instruction Level: Intermediate |
| Keyword(s): choice, concurrent chains, concurrent operants |
| Target Audience: Anyone with a basic understanding of choice in behavior-analytic practice. |
Learning Objectives: 1. Describe the current state of research related to choice arrangements in applied behavior analysis.
2. Describe the benefit of including choice in clinical practice.
3. Select strategies to increase choice in their clinical practice. |
| |
| A Review of Choice-Based Assessments and Interventions |
| KATHRYN M. KESTNER (West Virginia University), Kacey Renee Finch (StepOne Neurodiversity Services), Rebecca Kolb (University of Minnesota) |
| Abstract: In applied clinical work and research, behavior analysts can arrange opportunities for choice (i.e., concurrent operants) as an independent variable, and response allocation among choice options can be measured as a dependent variable (i.e., engaging in one response given two or more concurrently available options). Choice assessments arrange options among multiple stimuli or conditions to gather information to inform treatment planning. Choice-based interventions arrange opportunities to allocate responding among concurrently available operants with the goal of increasing or decreasing clinically relevant behavior. Choice-based procedures provide behavior analysts with tools to promote their clients’ rights to autonomy and self-determination by incorporating client preference and choice. We systematically reviewed over 35 published articles over 20 years, coding for characteristics of the articles, participants, independent variables, and dependent variables. The reliability of coding was evaluated for over 40% of articles resulting in an agreement score of 94%. In this presentation, we will highlight the ways clinicians can incorporate choice-based assessments and interventions into their work to address versatile clinical goals across populations and settings. |
| |
Choice Versus No Choice: Practical Considerations for Increasing Choices |
| JI YOUNG KIM (Pennsylvania State University - Harrisburg), Cody Morris (Salve Regina University), Megan Ellsworth (Salve Regina University), Xiaoyuan Liu (Teachers College, Columbia University), Nicole Seacord (Penn State Harrisburg) |
| Abstract: Choices can be incorporated into many components of behavior-analytic assessment and treatment, such as providing clients with a choice between multiple items, activities, or tasks. We reviewed key characteristics of 38 behavior-analytic articles that compared choice and no-choice conditions. We coded the experimental arrangements of choice and no-choice conditions and analyzed potential factors affecting preferences for choice and no-choice. Intercoder agreement was evaluated in 34.15% of the experiments included in the reviewed studies with a mean agreement score of 94.44%. The findings of the review suggest that the sizing of alternatives from which to choose, the timing of choice opportunities, and the timing of the delivery of the chosen option varied widely across the studies. Further, preferences for choice shifted with differential reinforcement history and response effort manipulations of choice or no choice. The findings suggest that individual variables should be considered when providing choices, but more research is needed. |
|
| |