Correspondence between preference for and efficacy of behavioral interventions: A systematic review

Abstract

Understanding of the correspondence between intervention preference and efficacy is limited. We systematically reviewed 112 articles (457 cases) evaluating efficacy of and preference for behavioral interventions. We analyzed the percentage of cases for whom interventions were preferred and efficacious across broad (e.g., behavior reduction, performance, skill acquisition) and specific (e.g., noncontingent reinforcement, video modeling) intervention types. Authors reported one preferred intervention for most cases. Regarding efficacy, authors reported about half of cases as having one efficacious intervention and the other half having multiple equally efficacious interventions. The same intervention was preferred and efficacious for 74% of cases for whom authors reported one preferred and one efficacious intervention. Several specific interventions were generally preferred and efficacious across cases (e.g., digital stimuli, computer‐based instruction, accumulated reinforcement, contingent reinforcement). We discuss clinical recommendations, the importance of assessing preference, and the need for research in developing protocols for assessing intervention preference.