Restricted access

Research article

First published online April 8, 2026

Request permissions

Preliminary Demonstration of Concurrent-Chains Progressive Ratio Schedules to Measure Magnitude of Relative Preference

Taylor K. Lewis https://orcid.org/0009-0009-5051-3852 and Tom Cariveau https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7220-3902 [email protected]View all authors and affiliations

https://doi.org/10.1177/01454455261434869

Abstract
Data availability statement
References
Biographies

Abstract

Concurrent-chains arrangements are commonly used to assess preference for interventions. Typically, these assessments are used to identify the most-preferred intervention, which may result in the rejection of other acceptable interventions. Modifications to the chained schedule might allow for the quantification of the degree of relative preference. The current study served as an initial demonstration of a modified concurrent-chains arrangement that included a progressive-ratio schedule as the second link of a three-link chain. Two participants preferred a single condition, requiring removal of the most-preferred alternative to yield a preference hierarchy. For two additional participants, preference hierarchies were identified through break points, although both participants exhibited small differences in relative preference across conditions. The findings of the current study suggest that alternative measures of relative preference might provide additional information for behavior analysts tasked with identifying individualized interventions.

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.

Data availability statement

The data from this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.*

References

Auten E. M., Van Camp C., Ferguson A. B. (2024). A review of the concurrent-chains arrangement to assess intervention choice: 2018–2023. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 57(2), 319–330. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.1059

Bannerman D. J., Sheldon J. B., Sherman J. A., Harchik A. E. (1990). Balancing the right to habilitation with the right to personal liberties: The rights of people with developmental disabilities to eat too many doughnuts and take a nap. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23(1), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1990.23-79

Basile C. D., Tiger J. H., Lillie M. A. (2021). Comparing paired-stimulus and multiple-stimulus concurrent-chains preference assessments: Consistency, correspondence, and efficiency. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 54(4), 1488–1502. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.856

Call N. A., Trosclair-Lasserre N. M., Findley A. J., Reavis A. R., Shillingsburg M. A. (2013). Correspondence between single versus daily preference assessment outcomes and reinforcer efficacy under progressive-ratio schedules. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45(4), 763–777. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2012.45-763

Chen E., Borrero C. S. W., Frank-Crawford M. A., Borrero J. C. (2022). Accumulated-and distributed-reinforcer arrangements in the treatment of challenging mealtime behavior. Behavioral Interventions, 37(4), 1058–1079. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1899

Cortes A., Wiskow K. M. (2022). Further evaluation of general and descriptive praise statements on the acquisition of tacts. Behavioral Interventions, 37(4), 1254–1263. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1903

Davison M. (1983). Bias and sensitivity to reinforcement in a concurrent-chain schedule. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 40(1), 15–34. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1983.40-15

DeLeon I. G., Frank M. A., Gregory M. K., Allman M. J. (2009). On the correspondence between preference assessment outcomes and progressive-ratio schedule assessments of stimulus value. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42(3), 729–733. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2009.42-729

Fahmie T. A., Rodriguez N. M., Luczynski K. C., Rahaman J. A., Charles B. M., Zangrillo A. N. (2023). Toward an explicit technology of ecological validity. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 56(2), 302–322. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.972

Farber R. S., Dickson C. A. (2023). The classification and utility of the differential observing response. Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice, 23(3), 179–194. https://doi.org/10.1037/bar0000272

Flowers J., Dawes J. (2023). Dignity and respect: Why therapeutic assent matters. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 16, 913–920. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-023-00772-6

Francisco M. T., Borrero J. C., Sy J. R. (2008). Evaluation of absolute and relative reinforcer value using progressive-ratio schedules. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41(2), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2008.41-189

Fulton C. J., Tiger J. H., Meitzen H. M., Effertz H. M. (2020). A comparison of accumulated and distributed reinforcement periods with children exhibiting escape-maintained problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 53(2), 782–795. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.622

Glover A. C., Roane H. S., Kadey H. J., Grow L. L. (2008). Preference for reinforcers under progressive- and fixed-ratio schedules: A comparison of single and concurrent arrangements. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41(2), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2008.41-163

Grace R. C., Berg M. E., Kyonka E. G. E. (2006). Choice and timing in concurrent chains: Effects of initial-link duration. Behavioural Processes, 71(2), 188–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2005.11.002

Hagopian L. P., Long E. S., Rush K. S. (2004). Preference assessment procedures for individuals with developmental disabilities. Behavior Modification, 28(5), 668–677. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445503259836

Hagopian L. P., Rush K. S., Lewin A. B., Long E. S. (2001). Evaluating the predictive validity of a single stimulus engagement preference assessment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34(4), 475–485. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2001.34-475

Halbur M. E., Kodak T., Wood R., Corrigan E. (2020). An evaluation of parent preference for prompting procedures. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 53(2), 707–726. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.616

Hanley G. P., Piazza C. C., Fisher W. W., Contrucci S. A., Maglieri K. A. (1997). Evaluation of client preference for function-based treatment packages. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30(3), 459–473. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1997.30-459

Hanley G. P., Piazza C. C., Fisher W. W., Maglieri K. A. (2005). On the effectiveness of and preference for punishment and extinction components of function-based interventions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38(1), 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2005.6-04

Hodos W. (1961). Progressive ratio as a measure of reward strength. Science, 134(3483), 943–944. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.134.3483.943

Irwin Helvey C., Van Camp C. M., Mueller C. E., Auten E. M. (2023). Evaluating preference for functional and nonfunctional stimuli in the treatment of destructive behavior. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 16(3), 867–872. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-023-00773-5

Jacobs E. A., Borrero J. C., Vollmer T. R. (2013). Translational applications of quantitative choice models. In Madden G. J., Dube W. V., Hackenberg T. D., Hanley G. P., Lattal K. A. (Eds.), APA handbook of behavior analysis, Vol. 2. Translating principles into practice (pp. 165–190). American Psychological Association.

Kang S., O’Reilly M., Lancioni G., Falcomata T. S., Sigafoos J., Xu Z. (2013). Comparison of the predictive validity and consistency among preference assessment procedures: A review of the literature. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(1), 1125–1133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2012.12.021

Killeen P. R., Posadas-Sanchez D., Johansen E. B., Thrailkill E. A. (2009). Progressive ratio schedules of reinforcement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 35(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012497

Kodak T., Campbell V., Begman S., LeBlanc B., Kurtz-Nelson E., Cariveau T., Haq S., Zemantic P., Mahon J. (2016). Examination of efficacious, efficient, and socially valid error-correction procedures to teach sight words and prepositions to children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 49(3), 532–547. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.310

Langford J. S., Pitts R. C., Hughes C. E. (2019). Assessing functions of stimuli associated with rich-to-lean transitions using a choice procedure. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 112(1), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.540

Lockhart K. A. (1979). Behavioral assessment of human preference. The Behavior Analyst, 2(2), 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391837

Mandel N. R., Cividini-Motta C., Schram J. (2021). An evaluation of the impact of stimulus mode on acquisition, maintenance, and generalization of tacts of actions. Behavioral Interventions, 37(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1792

Mazur J. E. (1988). Estimation of indifference points with an adjusting-delay procedure. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 49(1), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1988.49-37

Mazur J. E. (1998). Choice and self-control. In Lattal K. A., Perone M. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in human operant behavior (pp. 131–161). Springer.

McFarland J., Hussar B., Zhang J., Wang X., Wang K., Hein S., Diliberti M., Cataldi E. F., Mann F. B., Barmer A., Nachazel T., Barnett M., Purcell S. (2019). The condition of education 2019 (NCES 2019-144). U.S. Department of Education.

Morris C., Detrick J. J., Peterson S. M. (2021). Participant assent in behavior analytic research: Considerations for participants with autism and developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 54(4), 1300–1316. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.859

Morris C., Oliveira J. P., Perrin J., Federico C. A., Martasian P. J. (2024). Toward a further understanding of assent. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 57(2), 304–318. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.1063

Morris C., Zarcaro E. A., Perrin J., Ellsworth M. E. (2024). Discrepancies between treatment preference and effectiveness. Behavioral Interventions, 39(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.2057

Northup J., George T., Jones K., Broussard C., Vollmer T. R. (1996). A comparison of reinforcer assessment methods: The utility of verbal and pictorial choice procedures. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29(2), 201–212. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1996.29-201

Perone M., Courtney K. (1992). Fixed-ratio pausing: Joint effects of past reinforcer magnitude and stimuli correlated with upcoming reinforcer magnitude. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 57, 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1992.57-33

Retzlaff B. J., Parthum E. T. P., Pitts R. C., Hughes C. E. (2017). Escape from rich-to-lean transitions: Stimulus change and timeout. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 107(1), 65–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.236

Roane H. S. (2008). On the applied use of progressive-ratio schedules of reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41(2), 155–161. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2008.41-155

Roane H. S., Lerman D. C., Vorndran C. M. (2001). Assessing reinforcers under progressive schedule requirements. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34(2), 145–167. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2001.34-145

Roscoe E. M., Iwata B. A., Kahng S. (1999). Relative versus absolute reinforcement effects: Implications for preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 32(4), 479–493. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1999.32-479

Saunders K. (2010). Stimulus control is an inference: Implications for instructional programming. Behavior and Philosophy, 38(2), 153–155.

Schwartz I. S. (1991). The study of consumer behavior and social validity: An essential partnership for applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24(2), 241–244. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1991.24-241

Schwartz I. S., Baer D. M. (1991). Social validity assessments: Is current practice state of the art? Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24(2), 189–204. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1991.24-189

Shull R. L. (2011). Bouts, changeovers, and units of operant behavior. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 12(1), 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2011.11434355

Singh N. N. (1990). Effects of two error-correction procedures on oral reading errors: Word supply versus sentence repeat. Behavior Modification, 14(2), 188–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/01454455900142005

Slocum S. K., Tiger J. H. (2011). An assessment of the efficiency of and child preference for forward and backward chaining. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44(4), 793–805. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2011.44-793

Squires N., Fantino E. (1971). A model for choice in simple concurrent and concurrent-chains schedules. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 15(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1971.15-27

Tessing J. L., Napolitano D. A., McAdam D. B., DiCesare A., Axelrod S. (2006). The effects of providing access to stimuli following choice making during vocal preference assessments. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39(4), 501–506. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2006.56-05

Treptow M. A., Burns M. K., McComas J. J. (2007). Reading at frustration, instructional, and independent levels: The effects on students’ reading comprehension and time on task. School Psychology Review, 36(1), 159–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2007.12087958

University of Oregon. (2020). 8th edition of dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (DIBELS). https://dibels.uoregon.edu

Van Houten R., Axelrod S., Bailey J. S., Favell J. E., Foxx R. M., Iwata B. A., Lovaas O. I. (1988). The right to effective behavioral treatment. The Behavior Analyst, 11(2), 111–114. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1988.21-381

Waldvogel J. M., Dixon M. R. (2008). Exploring the utility of preference assessments in organizational behavior management. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 28, 76–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/01608060802006831

Witts B. N., Bruzek J. L. (2024). Assessing negative reinforcement through simultaneous observing and committed concurrent progressive-ratio procedures: Preliminary investigations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 121(3), 346–357. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.913

Biographies

Taylor K. Lewis, MS, BCBA is a doctoral student in the Department of Psychology at the University of North Carolina Wilmington. She received a Master’s degree in Psychology from the University of North Carolina Wilmington. Her primary research interests include methods to leverage stimulus control technologies to refine instructional procedures for children with and without developmental disabilities.

Tom Cariveau, PhD, LP, BCBA-D, is an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of North Carolina Wilmington. He received a Master’s degree in Special Education and PhD in School Psychology from the University of Oregon. His primary research interests include instructional methods to foster coherent stimulus control topographies, analyses of controlling conditions, and experimental designs for skill acquisition.

|

You currently have no access to this content. Visit the access options page to authenticate.