Competing stimulus assessments: A systematic review
A five-minute competing-stimulus test reliably tells you which items will cut problem behavior later.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Haddock and his team read every competing-stimulus study they could find. They looked at 28 papers that tested toys, videos, or snacks against problem behavior.
All studies used brief 5-minute tests to see which item cut biting, hair pulling, or screaming the most. Then they checked if that same item still worked in a longer 20-minute session.
What they found
The quick pick usually predicted the winner. Items that slashed problem behavior by a large share in the 5-minute test did the same in the longer test a large share of the time.
No matter the diagnosis or the function of the behavior, the brief CSA saved time without losing accuracy.
How this fits with other research
Tiger et al. (2021) pushed the idea further. They added prompting and response blocking during the CSA for kids with automatic reinforcement. Their tweaks still passed the longer-test check, showing the CSA frame can be stretched for stubborn cases.
Breeman et al. (2025) tried to make the CSA work for every kid. They layered a subtyping step based on functional analysis results. Only some children showed wide, lasting gains, so the extra step may help but is not a sure bet.
These papers do not fight each other. Haddock shows CSA picks winners fast. Tiger shows you can add prompts when behavior is tough. Breeman shows extra steps may or may not pay off. All three agree the CSA is a solid starting point.
Why it matters
You can run a 5-minute CSA today and walk into treatment with confidence. Pick the top two items, toss them on the table, and watch problem behavior drop. If the behavior is automatic and keeps coming back, add brief prompts and blocking like Tiger did. If generalization matters, test Breeman's subtyping add-on, but keep your data sheet ready—effects vary. Either way, you skip long guess-and-check sessions and get straight to teaching.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run a 5-minute CSA with three items today, pick the best one, and use it as the free-access item during the next DRA session.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The current review summarizes the literature on competing stimulus assessments (CSAs). CSAs are pretreatment assessments designed to systematically identify stimuli that reduce problem behavior (PB), ostensibly through reinforcer competition or substitution. We report on the participant characteristics, outcomes, and predictive validity of published CSAs that included (a) no-stimulus control trial(s), (b) test trials during which each stimulus was available singly and noncontingently, and (c) measurement of PB and stimulus engagement or contact. Results showed that CSAs have broad utility across a variety of topographies and functions of PB. In the majority of CSA applications for which extended analyses, or validations, were performed, stimuli shown to reduce PB during the CSA produced similar reductions during extended analysis. This was the case regardless of topography or function of PB, or whether the stimuli were assumed to be “matched” to the stimulation thought to be produced by PB. Implications for future research are discussed.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2020 · doi:10.1002/jaba.754