Eliminating biased selections during concurrent‐chains schedules: A discovery research example
Three to five forced-choice exposures in the reinforcement link wipe out position bias during concurrent-chains preference tests for minimally verbal children with autism.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Rodriguez et al. (2024) worked with seven minimally verbal children with autism.
They used a concurrent-chains preference test where kids first pick a picture, then get the item after a short task.
To stop kids from always hitting the same picture, the team added 3-5 forced trials that showed the reinforcer really worked.
What they found
Every child started choosing each item to match its real value instead of favoring one side.
Bias dropped to zero once the forced exposures showed what each link delivered.
How this fits with other research
Najdowski et al. (2003) proved pigeons can shift choice daily when delays change; Rodriguez shows the same schedule can fix biased picks in kids.
Lugo et al. (2019) also used concurrent-chains with autism, but they compared presession pairing to free-play. Rodriguez keeps the schedule and tweaks the link content, extending the method to bias removal.
Gabor et al. (2016) let caregivers sample DRA, DRO, NCR and then choose; Rodriguez flips the idea—kids sample reinforcers through forced trials so their later choice is fair.
Why it matters
If a child always taps the left card, you may think that item is preferred. Three quick forced exposures can reveal the true favorite and keep your assessment clean. Try adding them next time you run a concurrent-chains test.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Before the free-choice phase, present each item 3-5 times through the task so the child sees exactly what it delivers.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
AbstractWhen an individual has limited language, concurrent‐chains schedules offer an objective means of assessing preference among behavior‐change procedures so that recipients can be incorporated into the treatment selection process. We initially attempted to use a concurrent‐chains schedule to assess children's preference for different types of token systems. However, upon observing children engaging in patterned selections, we evaluated procedures for eliminating biased selections. This was done using simple and salient terminal‐link arrangements with seven children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. For five of seven children, manipulating the number of successive forced‐choice trials to the reinforcement link was sufficient to produce discriminated responding. Removing the academic task in the terminal link was necessary for two children. For all participants, discriminated responding maintained when the initial exposure arrangement was reinstated. Results are discussed regarding the potential effects of a history of errorless teaching biasing selections during concurrent‐chains schedules.
Behavioral Interventions, 2024 · doi:10.1002/bin.2021