|
| Exploring Applications of Concurrent Chains and Progressive Ratio Arrangements to Enhance Intervention Outcomes |
| Saturday, May 24, 2025 |
| 10:00 AM–11:50 AM |
| Marriott Marquis, M4 Level, Independence A-C |
| Area: AUT/DDA; Domain: Applied Research |
| Chair: Robert W. Isenhower (Rutgers University ) |
| Discussant: John C. Borrero (University of Maryland, Baltimore County) |
| CE Instructor: Robert W. Isenhower, Ph.D. |
| Abstract: This symposium centers on two widely used behavior-analytic procedures for identifying preferred and reinforcing stimuli: concurrent chains and progressive ratio (PR) arrangements. The first two studies focus on the application of concurrent chains procedures. Hall et al. investigate how concurrent chains can be used to identify reinforcing stimuli in autistic adults, providing insights into improving individualized supports. Exline et al. assess client preferences for several functional communication training (FCT) interventions, designed to reduce problem behavior in individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), emphasizing the importance of aligning interventions with client and caregiver choice. Lewis and Cariveau build on this by embedding progressive-ratio schedules within a concurrent-chains arrangement, enabling an assessment of both relative preference and the strength of preference. Finally, Goldman et al. address a common criticism of PR schedules by introducing a more efficient, abbreviated PR analysis while maintaining concurrent validity. Overall, these studies underscore the importance of refining and adapting assessment tools to better capture both client preferences and the reinforcing value of stimuli, ultimately enhancing intervention outcomes in both clinical practice and research. |
| Instruction Level: Basic |
| Keyword(s): Client Preference, Concurrent Chains, Progressive Ratio, Reinforcer Assessment |
| Target Audience: Audience should have basic familiarity with concurrent chains and progressive ratio procedures. |
Learning Objectives: 1. Describe how concurrent-chains procedures can be used to assess client preference and reinforcing value
2. Describe how progressive ratio analyses can be used to assess preference strength and reinforcing value
3. Describe at least one strength and one limitation of concurrent-chains procedures
4. Describe at least one strength and one limitation of progressive ratio analyses |
| |
| Concurrent Chains Procedures Identify Hierarchies of Preferred and Reinforcing Stimuli in the Adult Service Setting |
| SYDNEY HANNAH HALL (Rutgers University), Julia Iannaccone (Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey), Nicholas Migliaccio (Rutgers University), Shuangyu Zhao (Rutgers University), Christopher Manente (Rutgers Center for Adult Autism Services, Rutgers University), Robert LaRue (Rutgers University), SungWoo Kahng (Rutgers University) |
| Abstract: Reinforcer assessments are widely used in practice to identify reinforcing stimuli to be used in behavioral interventions for individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and related disabilities. Research on this topic including adult participants, however, is severely limited. Concurrent chains procedures are an effective method of assessing relative reinforcer values (Hanley et al., 2003). The current study evaluated the utility of a concurrent chains arrangement to identify a hierarchy of preferred and reinforcing stimuli for two adult participants. Cooper, a 25 year-old male with ASD, and Tucker, a 24 year-old male diagnosed with ASD, participated in this study and both were admitted to an outpatient clinic for the assessment and treatment of severe problem behavior. The concurrent chains arrangement included initial link presentation in the format of a multiple stimulus without replacement (MSWO) preference assessment. Contingent on initial link selection, the participant experience the terminal link of completing mastered work tasks to earn the selected reinforcer. Data were recorded on initial link selection and frequency of work tasks completed. The current procedure successfully identified a hierarchy of preferred stimuli (initial link selections in MSWO format) and reinforcing stimuli (rate of work completed in terminal link). |
| |
Evaluation of Effectiveness and Participant Preference of Functional Communication Training With and Without Extinction |
| EMILY PAIGE EXLINE (Kennedy Krieger Institute), Tonya Nichole Davis (Baylor University), Serena Rose Garza (Baylor University), Kelsey Marie Sparks (Baylor Univerisity), Rachel Taylor (Baylor University) |
| Abstract: Evaluating participant preference of challenging behavior intervention is an emerging theme in challenging behavior research to increase social validity of challenging behavior reduction interventions. However, no studies have yet evaluated participant preference of multiple Functional Communication Training (FCT) variations compared to a no intervention condition. The purpose of this study was (a) to evaluate the effectiveness of FCT with and without extinction, (b) evaluate participant relative preference of FCT with extinction, FCT without extinction, and no intervention, and (c) compare participants’ preference to those of their caregivers. This study used a reversal design with an embedded multielement design to evaluate the effectiveness of FCT with and without extinction and a concurrent-chain schedule to evaluate participant preference for FCT procedures with four children with developmental disabilities and their caregivers. Both FCT with and without extinction were found to be effective in reducing challenging behavior and increasing communication. Two participants preferred FCT without extinction, one participant preferred FCT with extinction, and one participant preferred FCT over the baseline/no intervention condition. Three of the caregivers preferred FCT with extinction and one caregiver preferred FCT without extinction. While both FCT interventions were effective and preferred by the participants, more research is needed to further evaluate the factors that influence the efficacy and participant preference of FCT with and without extinction. |
| |
| Assessment of Preference Strength Under Concurrent-Chains Progressive Ratio Schedules |
| TAYLOR LEWIS (University of North Carolina Wilmington), Tom Cariveau (University of North Carolina Wilmington) |
| Abstract: Concurrent chains arrangements commonly yield preference hierarchies (i.e., what is preferred), but do not provide a measure of preference strength (i.e., how much it is preferred). Intervention selection based on preference hierarchies may result in less efficacious procedures when preference strength might suggest that a more efficacious intervention is only slightly less preferred. In order to assess this possibility, the current study evaluated the effect of a progressive ratio schedule as the second link of a three link concurrent chains arrangement on participants’ selection of book modalities. Two participants showed a strong preference, although the identified preference was incongruent with other assessment types for one participant. For two additional participants, preference hierarchies were consistent, although both participants exhibited weak preference across modalities. The findings of the current study suggest that measures of preference strength, in addition to relative preference, might provide important information for behavior analysts tasked with identifying individualized interventions. |
| |
| A Brief Progressive Ratio Assessment: Development and Translation |
| KISSEL JOSEPH GOLDMAN (Kennedy Krieger Institute), John C. Borrero (University of Maryland, Baltimore County), Michelle A. Frank-Crawford (Kennedy Krieger Institute), Savannah Tate (Kennedy Krieger Institute), Jessica L Becraft (Kennedy Krieger Institute) |
| Abstract: In progressive-ratio (PR) assessments, reinforcers are delivered contingent upon a fixed-ratio requirement that increases systematically within session. PR assessments are used to evaluate the reinforcing efficacy of stimuli. However, PR assessments can be time-consuming and potentially aversive due to the rapidly thinning reinforcement schedule. This study aimed to adapt the Effective Delay 50% (ED50) method from delay-discounting research to create a more efficient PR assessment. In this adapted version, fixed-ratio requirements were titrated across a maximum of 5-trials based on the completion or non-completion of previous requirements. We sought to determine whether the brief PR assessment would yield comparable results to a “standard” PR assessment in less time. Sixty-four college students completed both assessments using online typing tasks. On average, participants completed higher schedule requirements in less time on the brief assessment. A similar comparison was conducted in an applied setting with six children with neurodevelopmental disabilities performing mastered tasks. As with the college students, participants reached higher schedule requirements more quickly with the brief assessment. These findings suggest that standard PR assessments may sometimes underestimate the reinforcing efficacy of stimuli due to the rigid progression of fixed-ratio requirements, and that a brief, titrated approach may be more efficient. |
|
| |