Preference for fluent versus disfluent work schedules.
Some learners prefer to work straight through and get their break at the end—always test fluency-based vs activity-interspersed schedules during preference assessments.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team worked with one adult who had a traumatic brain injury.
They used a concurrent-operants test. The person could pick between two work plans.
Plan A was fluent: finish all tasks, then take a break. Plan B mixed short breaks inside the work.
The researchers counted how often the person chose each plan.
What they found
The participant picked the fluent schedule almost every time.
He liked doing all work first and saving the break for the end.
This shows that steady flow can be more reinforcing than sprinkled breaks.
How this fits with other research
Dougherty et al. (1994) also gave adults with disabilities a choice. They found that picking preferred tasks raised work engagement. Both studies agree: choice matters, but the part you let them choose can differ.
Vos et al. (2013) saw mixed results: some people wanted choice, others did not. That lines up with the TBI case here. Preference is personal, so you must test it.
Matson et al. (1994) showed that using preferred classroom activities cut problem behavior. The 2011 paper flips the focus: instead of what task is chosen, it asks when breaks are chosen. Together they tell us to match both task and schedule to the learner’s likes.
Why it matters
If you assume everyone likes frequent breaks, you might accidentally make work harder. Run a quick concurrent-schedule probe: offer a fluent block versus an interspersed block for five minutes and let the learner vote with their time.
When the person keeps picking the fluent side, honor it. You will likely see smoother work and less avoidance. Always re-check; preferences can shift.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Place two folders on the desk: one holds all tasks, the other mixes in mini-break cards—let the client choose and record the pick.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Two studies were conducted that examined the preference of a student diagnosed with a brain injury. In Study 1, a preference assessment was followed by a three-choice concurrent-operants reinforcer assessment. Two choices resulted in access to preferred activities for completing work, and a third choice resulted in access to nothing (i.e., no activity). Unpredictably, the participant consistently chose the no-activity option. Study 2 examined why this student preferred work associated with no activity over preferred activities. Through a variety of concurrent-operants procedures, it was determined that she preferred fluent work followed by reinforcers rather than work that was broken up by access to preferred activities. Implications for research on preference are discussed.
Journal of applied behavior analysis, 2011 · doi:10.1901/jaba.2011.44-847