A comparison of <scp>rate‐based</scp> and <scp>latency‐based</scp> assessments for determining demand aversiveness

Liollio and team compared two ways to rank how hard kids find school tasks.

They worked with three children who have intellectual disability.

One method counted how many times a child tried to leave the table.

The other timed how long the child stayed before the first try to leave.

The two methods did not always give the same task order.

When problem behavior happened a lot, the timing method finished faster.

When problem behavior was rare, the counting method was quicker.

Perrin et al. (2018) warned that timing alone can be too sensitive during treatment.

They saw timing give jumpy data when kids hit themselves hard.

Imler et al. (2024) later showed timing also speeds up stimulus choice tests.

Together the three papers say: use timing to save minutes, but keep an eye on data stability.

You can now pick the faster test before you even start.

If the child hits, bites, or bolts often, start with latency.

If behavior is rare, stick with rate.

Either way you still get a clear work list without wasting session time.