A review of the concurrent‐chains arrangement to assess intervention choice: 2018–2023

Auten and team read every paper from 2018-2023 that used concurrent-chains to let clients pick ABA interventions.

They did not run new kids or collect new data. They simply mapped how researchers set up the choice tests and what went wrong.

The review shows the setup is spreading fast. More teams now let clients choose between two full treatments instead of just two toys.

Yet many studies skip key steps. Some forget to check if the client truly understands the choice. Others ignore side effects like extra problem behavior.

Kestner et al. (2023) already counted choice studies in kids. Their systematic review covers the same 2018-2023 window and includes the concurrent-chains papers. So Auten et al. (2024) zooms in on one tool that Kestner et al. (2023) only skims.

Cryan et al. (1996) asked if people with severe disabilities could even make choices. Auten et al. (2024) shows they can, but only when the chains are short and cues are clear.

Calamari et al. (1987) mapped how pigeons peck under these schedules. The bird data still guides the timing rules used today with children.

Green et al. (1999) used a simpler two-choice test in homes. Auten et al. (2024) shows the newer chain method gives richer data, yet takes longer and needs more staff.

You can now copy the exact steps that worked. Run a five-minute chain test before starting DTT versus NET. Watch if the learner picks the harder but faster path. Note any spikes in escape. Share the clip with parents to show why you chose one plan over another.