ABA Fundamentals

An analysis of the value of token reinforcement using a multiple‐schedule assessment

Fiske et al. (2020) · Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 2020
★ The Verdict

Run a five-minute MSA before you bank on tokens—half of these kids responded better to primary reinforcers.

✓ Read this if BCBAs writing token programs for children with autism in clinic or school settings.
✗ Skip if Practitioners already using individualized reinforcers confirmed by prior assessment.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Fiske et al. (2020) ran a quick test to see if plastic tokens really work like snacks or stickers for kids with autism. They used a multiple-schedule assessment with four children. The kids could work for tokens or for already-liked items in different colored bins. The team tracked which bin the child picked most often.

The study lasted a few sessions per child. Each session gave clear signals: one color meant tokens available, another color meant primary reinforcers like tiny cookies. The order of colors switched to rule out simple color likes.

02

What they found

Two children picked the token bin just as often as the cookie bin. Tokens worked fine for them. The other two children almost always picked the cookie bin. For them, tokens were weak.

The team saw clear individual lines on the graphs. No child showed a middle, wishy-washy pattern. Either tokens matched the power of food or they fell short.

03

How this fits with other research

Willemsen-Swinkels et al. (1998) also used tokens with kids with autism and saw big gains when the tokens were pictures of each child’s obsession, like trains or letters. Their positive results seem to clash with Fiske’s two weak-token kids. The gap closes when you notice H used special tokens linked to strong interests, while Fiske used plain plastic chips. Token type, not the kids, likely drives the difference.

Winett et al. (1972) showed that contingent tokens beat non-contingent tokens for neurotypical kindergarteners. Fiske extends this idea by asking, 'Do tokens even function as reinforcers at all?' before checking contingency effects. The 1972 study assumed value; Fiske tested it first.

Patel et al. (2019) found tokens boosted active play in most preschoolers without autism. Fiske’s mixed outcome in an autism sample adds caution: what works for neurotypical kids may work for only some autistic kids.

04

Why it matters

Before you build a whole token economy, spend one or two sessions running the same quick MSA. If the child picks tokens as often as primary reinforcers, move ahead. If not, swap in snacks, stickers, or obsession-based tokens first. This five-minute check can save weeks of weak reinforcement and faster progress on the real target skills you care about.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Tape two colored bins on the table, one with tokens, one with snacks, and count client choices for ten trials.

02At a glance

Intervention
token economy
Design
multiple baseline across participants
Sample size
4
Population
autism spectrum disorder
Finding
mixed

03Original abstract

Token systems are widely used in clinical settings, necessitating the development of methods to evaluate the reinforcing value of these systems. In the current paper, we replicated the use of a multiple-schedule reinforcer assessment (MSA; Smaby, MacDonald, Ahearn, & Dube, 2007) to evaluate the components of a token economy system for 4 learners with autism. Token systems had reinforcing value similar to primary reinforcers for 2 of the 4 learners, but resulted in lower rates of responding than primary reinforcers for the other 2 learners. Differentiated responding across learners may warrant variation in clinical recommendations on the use of tokens. The results of this study support formal assessment of token system effectiveness, and the MSA procedure provides an efficient method by which to conduct such assessments.

Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2020 · doi:10.1002/jaba.613