Optimizing variables for contingency management among infant caregivers using a simulated purchase task

Day-Watkins et al. (2025) built a 10-minute shopping game for parents of babies. Parents picked how much money they would need to follow safe-sleep rules for different lengths of time. The game acted like a quick lab test to see what price and what time frame make parents say “yes.”

The game showed which dollar amounts and which time spans predict parent follow-through. The authors did not run a real-world sleep program, so no actual sleep outcomes were measured.

LMcQuaid et al. (2024) also shrank a long test into 42 minutes. They squeezed a full functional analysis and a competing-stimulus check into one brief session for preschoolers with SIB. Both papers prove you can harvest key data fast before treatment starts.

Pattison et al. (2022) and Sasson et al. (2022) ran full caregiver sleep programs. Pattison’s ‘Sleeping Sound’ RCT cut sleep problems in autistic children for a full year. J et al.’s Down-syndrome sleep package added no extra benefit over usual care. Day-Watkins gives the missing first step: a quick way to decide how much incentive each parent needs before you launch programs like Pattison’s or J et al.’s.

Swain et al. (2025) remind us that caregiver behavior is the real lever. Their meta-analysis showed child gains happen only when parents actually use the strategies. Day-Watkins supplies the price tag for getting that parent buy-in.

You now have a 10-minute tool to size up motivation before you write a behavior plan. Run the purchase task, find the smallest incentive and the shortest pledge window the parent will accept, then plug those values into your contract or token system. No extra staff, no overnight pilot. Try it next time a family struggles to stick with sleep rules, feeding routines, or any health guideline.