Behavior Analysis in Practice

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 401–406 | Cite as

Reinforcer Choice on Skill Acquisition for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: a Systematic Replication

  • Jessie Northgrave
  • Jason C. VladescuEmail author
  • Ruth M. DeBar
  • Karen A. Toussaint
  • Lauren K. Schnell
Brief Practice


Providing students with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) a choice of putative reinforcers during learning trials may confer advantage during skill acquisition programming. However, such advantage should not be assumed and may not be associated with the most efficient instructional arrangement. In the current study, we taught labels of common object or conditional discriminations to participants with ASD and evaluated efficiency of instruction across child- and experimenter-choice instructional conditions. The results indicated that the most efficient acquisition was observed during the experimenter-choice condition for both participants.


Autism spectrum disorder Choice Instructional efficiency Skill acquisition 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. Brandt, J. A. A., Dozier, C. L., Juanico, J. F., Laudont, C. L., & Mick, B. R. (2015). The value of choice as a reinforcer for typically developing children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48, 1–19. Scholar
  2. Coon, J. T., & Miguel, C. F. (2012). The role of increased exposure to transfer-of-stimulus-control procedures on the acquisition of intraverbal behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45, 657–666. Scholar
  3. Dunn, M., & Dunn, L. M. (2007). Peabody picture vocabulary test (4th ed.). Circle Pines, MN: AGS.Google Scholar
  4. Gilliam, J. E. (2013). Gilliam Autism Rating Scale (3rd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
  5. Heal, N. A., Hanley, G. P., & Layer, S. A. (2009). An evaluation of the relative efficacy of and children’s preferences for teaching strategies that differ in amount of teacher directedness. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 123–143. Scholar
  6. Newborg, J. (2004). Battelle developmental inventory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
  7. Sindelar, P. T., Rosenberg, M. S., & Wilson, R. J. (1985). An adapted alternating treatment design for instructional research. Education & Treatment of Children, 81, 67–76.Google Scholar
  8. Sundberg, M. L. (2008). Verbal behavior milestones assessment and placement program: the VP-MAPP. Concord, CA: AVB Press.Google Scholar
  9. Toussaint, K., Kodak, T., & Vladescu, J. C. (2016). An evaluation of choice on instructional efficacy and individual preference for children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 49, 170–175. Scholar
  10. Williams, K. T. (2007). Expressive vocabulary test (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Pearson Assessments.Google Scholar
  11. Wolery, M., Gast, D. L., & Ledford, J. R. (2014). Comparison designs. In D. L. Gast & J. R. Ledford (Eds.), Single case research methodology: applications in special education and behavioral sciences (pp. 297–345). New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Applied Behavior AnalysisCaldwell UniversityCaldwellUSA
  2. 2.University of North TexasDentonUSA

Personalised recommendations