Evaluating two iterations of a paired stimulus preference assessment
Show one item at a time in paired-stimulus assessments to halve the minutes without losing accuracy.
01Research in Context
What this study did
MacNaul et al. (2024) compared two ways to run a paired-stimulus preference assessment.
One way shows two items at the same time. The other shows only one item at a time.
They used an alternating-treatments design to see if both ways give the same preference list.
What they found
Single-presentation gave the same top items as double-presentation.
It took about half the time and did not create more problem behavior or side picking.
How this fits with other research
Lancioni et al. (2006) tested verbal-only versus verbal-plus-tangible formats. Their results were mixed, but they also showed that small changes in format can matter.
Wolfe et al. (2018) used video-based paired-stimulus tests and found accuracy varied by child. MacNaul’s work now shows that, when you stay with tangible items, cutting the display to one item keeps accuracy steady.
Rodriguez et al. (2024) tweaked concurrent-chains to remove bias. Both 2024 studies agree: tiny procedural fixes can save time without hurting validity.
Why it matters
You can switch to single-presentation PSPA today and get your reinforcer list in half the minutes. Less time testing means more time teaching, and the risk of problem behavior stays flat. Perfect for busy clinics or classrooms with short attention spans.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Run your next PSPA with single-presentation and time it—you should finish in under five minutes.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
AbstractThe paired stimulus preference assessment (PSPA) is commonly used in both research and practice. However, two iterations have been described: a single‐presentation arrangement in which each tested stimulus is paired with one another once and a double‐presentation arrangement in which each tested stimulus is paired twice with counterbalanced placement. Each arrangement may have different advantages; however, no direct comparison exists. Thus, the purpose of the current study was to conduct both PSPA iterations to determine whether there are differences in the results obtained and which iteration was most efficient regarding time to administer. Seven participants were included, and results demonstrated high degrees of correspondence across preference assessment formats. The average time to administer the single‐presentation PSPA (M =6.6 min) was almost half the time to administer a double‐presentation PSPA (M =12.9 min), and no significant differences were observed for problem behavior, side biases, or latency to stimulus selection.
Behavioral Interventions, 2024 · doi:10.1002/bin.1977