Social validity of behavioral interventions typically is assessed with indirect methods or by determining preferences of the individuals who receive treatment, and direct observation of caregiver preference rarely is described. In this study, preferences of 5 caregivers were determined via a concurrent-chains procedure. Caregivers were neurotypical, and children had been diagnosed with developmental disabilities and engaged in problem behavior maintained by positive reinforcement. Caregivers were taught to implement noncontingent reinforcement (NCR), differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA), and differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO), and the caregivers selected interventions to implement during sessions with the child after they had demonstrated proficiency in implementing the interventions. Three caregivers preferred DRA, 1 caregiver preferred differential reinforcement procedures, and 1 caregiver did not exhibit a preference. Direct observation of implementation in concurrent-chains procedures may allow the identification of interventions that are implemented with sufficient integrity and preferred by caregivers.

The current study compared the effects of choice and no-choice reinforcement conditions on the task responding of 3 children with autism across 2 single-operant paradigm reinforcer assessments. The first assessment employed simple fixed-ratio (FR) schedules; the second used progressive-ratio (PR) schedules. The latter assessment identified the differential strength of choice-making conditions in promoting task responding relative to no-choice conditions for 2 participants; no differential findings were obtained during the FR assessment.

Studies have shown that the multiple‐stimulus without replacement (MSWO) preference assessment is an effective assessment format for identifying preferred items. However, it is possible that factors other than reinforcer quality might influence selections by some individuals when the MSWO array consists of edible items. The validity of the MSWO results was evaluated by comparing items identified as most and least preferred by the MSWO assessment in a concurrent‐schedule (CS) format. Varying edible items were used in each study. The MSWO format accurately identified the higher quality edible item for most participants across studies (76%); however, the MSWO format did not predict the highest quality edible item in the CS assessment for 20% to 30% of participants in each study.