Stimulus Avoidance Assessment: A Systematic Literature Review
This first map of stimulus avoidance assessments shows wide procedural chaos and zero outcome links—use it to tighten your own SAA protocol today.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Hurd et al. (2024) searched every published paper that used a stimulus avoidance assessment (SAA).
They wanted to see how researchers run these tests and what quality checks they include.
The team did a full systematic review, not a quick scan, so nothing was missed.
What they found
The papers show no single way to run an SAA.
Teams use different steps, different data sheets, and different rules for deciding when avoidance is real.
Almost none of the studies link the SAA results to later treatment success.
How this fits with other research
Haddock et al. (2020) did the same kind of review for competing stimulus assessments and found clear, positive predictive patterns.
The new SAA map reveals the opposite: we still do not know which stimuli will actually reduce problem behavior.
Gitimoghaddam et al. (2022) show that ABA reviews rarely include control groups or quality-of-life data; Hurd et al. confirm the same gap inside SAA work.
Cariveau et al. (2022) warn that half of published AATD studies lack proper controls; Hurd’s team shows SAAs have the same sloppy habit.
Why it matters
If you run an SAA, you now have a checklist of what the literature does and does not do.
Match your procedure to the best-described papers and add the missing pieces: clear operational definitions, inter-observer agreement, and a follow-up treatment test.
Share your data so the next review can finally say whether SAAs predict treatment success.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pull your last three SAA reports and add one missing quality step—either IOA data, a clear avoidance definition, or a planned treatment probe.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Board certified behavior analysts are ethically required to first address destructive behavior using reinforcement-based and other less intrusive procedures before considering the use of restrictive or punishment-based procedures (ethics standard 2.15; Behavior Analyst Certification Board, 2020). However, the inclusion of punishment in reinforcement-based treatments may be warranted in some cases of severe forms of destructive behavior that poses risk of harm to the client or others. In these cases, behavior analysts are required to base the selection of treatment components on empirical assessment results (ethics standard 2.14; Behavior Analyst Certification Board, 2020). One such preintervention assessment is the stimulus avoidance assessment (SAA), which allows clinicians to identify a procedure that is likely to function as a punisher. Since the inception of this assessment approach, no studies have conducted a systematic literature review of published SAA cases. These data may be pertinent to examine the efficacy, generality, and best practices for the SAA. The current review sought to address this gap by synthesizing findings from peer-reviewed published literature including (1) the phenomenology and epidemiology of the population partaking in the SAA; (2) procedural variations of the SAA across studies (e.g., number of series, session length); (3) important quality indicators of the SAA (i.e., procedural integrity, social validity); and (4) how the SAA informed final treatment efficacy. We discuss findings in the context of the clinical use of the SAA and suggest several avenues for future research.
Perspectives on Behavior Science, 2024 · doi:10.1007/s40614-024-00398-1