ASSESSING PREFERENCE FOR CHOICE-MAKING WITHIN ACTIVITY SCHEDULES 
AMONG CHILDREN WITH AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER 

By 

Natalie Lasinski 

A THESIS 

Submitted to 
Michigan State University 
in partial fulfillment of the requirements 
for the degree of 

Applied Behavior Analysis—Master of Arts 

2025 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ABSTRACT 

Activity schedules are commonly used in early intensive behavioral intervention to increase 

student independence in completing a sequence of activities. A study conducted by Deel et al. 

(2021) taught participants to assemble activity schedules where participants selected the order of 

activities (choice) and where the sequence of activities was already determined (no-choice). Deel 

et al. (2021) then evaluated preference for choice-making opportunities embedded in activity 

schedules. The purpose of the current study was to systematically replicate Deel et al. (2021) and 

evaluate participant preference for choice or no-choice activity schedules in concurrent operant 

assessments. All participants learned to assemble and independently complete choice and no-

choice activity schedules. Results of the concurrent operant assessments were idiosyncratic 

across participants. Practical implications and methodological considerations for future research 

are discussed. 

Keywords: activity schedules, choice, preference, early intervention  

 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF TABLES..........................................................................................................................iv 

LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................v 

INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1 

METHOD........................................................................................................................................4 

RESULTS.......................................................................................................................................13 

DISCUSSION................................................................................................................................17 

REFERENCES...............................................................................................................................24 

APPENDIX....................................................................................................................................27 

iii 

 
 
 
LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1: Baseline Task Analysis....................................................................................................28 

Table 2: Choice Condition Task Analysis......................................................................................29 

Table 3: No-Choice Condition Task Analysis...............................................................................30 

Table 4: Baseline Procedural Fidelity............................................................................................31 

Table 5: Choice Condition Procedural Fidelity.............................................................................32 

Table 6: No-Choice Condition Procedural Fidelity.......................................................................33 

Table 7: Concurrent Operant Assessment Procedural Fidelity......................................................34 

iv 

 
 
 
 
LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1 Activity Schedule Binders...............................................................................................27 

Figure 2 Graph of Correct Responding in Baseline, Teaching, and Concurrent Operant 
Assessments...................................................................................................................................35 

Figure 3 Display of Selection Distributions in Concurrent Operant 
Assessments...................................................................................................................................36 

v 

 
 
 
 
 
 
INTRODUCTION 

Activity schedules are visual supports that include sequences of pictures, scripts, and 

other stimuli to support independent and on-task behavior (Krantz & McClannahan, 2014). 

Across a variety of settings and contexts (e.g., school, community), activity schedules are an 

effective tool for supporting critical skills such as social interactions, appropriate play, daily 

living skills, vocational skills, academic skills, and transitions, and reducing reliance on adult 

prompting (Brodhead et al., 2019; Bryan & Gast, 2000; Carlile et al., 2013; Cihak, 2011; 

Kirkpatrick et al., 2023; Knight et al., 2015; Krantz & McClannahan, 2014; MacDuff et al., 

1993; Morrison et al., 2002). Further, young children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in 

early intensive behavioral intervention (EIBI) or preschool settings can be taught to follow 

activity schedules to increase appropriate engagement with leisure items or activities (e.g., Akers 

et al., 2016; Brodhead et al., 2018) and social interactions with peers (e.g., Akers et al., 2018; 

Betz et al., 2008; Morrison et al., 2002; Osos et al., 2021). This is important as engaging in 

restricted and/or repetitive behaviors during unstructured leisure time interferes with 

opportunities to engage in appropriate play and social interactions with peers (Armendariz & 

Hahs, 2019).  

Activity schedules also provide a context to teach and embed choice-making 

opportunities within the context of EIBI treatment (Deel et al., 2021; Krantz & McClannahan, 

2014; Morrison et al., 2002; Tincani et al., 2024; White et al., 2023). Choice-making increases 

student independence and autonomy, and may even function as a reinforcer (Tincani et al., 2024). 

However, choice-making is itself a discriminated operant that is learned. Choice-making consists 

of a conditional discrimination and a selection or topography-based response. Further, a student’s 

behavior must be under the control of the outcome it produces (contingency; see Tincani et al., 

1 

 
 
2024, for more information). Therefore, activity schedules may be a beneficial and accessible 

context to teach and provide opportunities for students with ASD to make choices, along with 

improving social interactions, play skills, time on task, and overall independence. 

A recent study conducted by Deel et al. (2021) taught choice-making within the context 

of photographic activity schedules to children with ASD. Participants learned to complete 

activity schedules including sequences of four leisure activities; some of the sequences were 

created by the practitioner whereby the participant did not have a choice in creating the 

sequence, and some of the sequences required participants to choose the sequence of their 

activities by selecting from an array of pictures representing the activities (leisure items), putting 

the activity selection in the schedule, and selecting from the remaining activities until a sequence 

of four activities was placed in the schedule. Each participant learned to complete the 

photographic activity schedule both when the teacher selected the sequence of those activities 

and when the learner selected the sequence of activities. Concurrent operant assessments were 

conducted to assess whether participants preferred choice or no-choice activity schedules. 

Preferences were idiosyncratic across participants and supported the value of incorporating a 

child’s preferences into treatment decisions regarding activity schedules. 

Deel et al. (2021) stated they did not continue to record percentage of correct responding 

in the choice assessments because the objective was to measure and assess participant 

preference. Therefore, the extent to which participants accurately completed the schedules they 

choose to engage with is unclear. The current study extended Deel et al. (2021) by measuring 

percentage of correct responding as participants completed the choice and no-choice activity 

schedules in concurrent operant assessments. 

2 

 
 
The purpose of the current study was to replicate and extend the study conducted by Deel 

et al. (2021) in assessing preference for choice or no-choice activity sequences in the context of a 

photographic activity schedule in young children with ASD. After teaching participants to follow 

the two types of activity schedules, we conducted concurrent operant assessments to evaluate 

whether participants demonstrated preference for choice activity schedules, no-choice activity 

schedules, or control activity schedules. We continued to measure percentage of correct 

responding while participants completed their selected schedules to assess whether participants’ 

preferences aligned with performance of independent schedule completion. We asked the 

following research questions: 

1.  What are the effects of choice activity sequences versus no-choice activity sequences 

on completion of a photographic activity schedule? 

2.  Will participants demonstrate preference for choice or no-choice activity schedules, 

or demonstrate no preference, when given the choice in completing a photographic 

activity schedule? 

3.  Will participants continue to complete photographic activity schedules independently 

and correctly when given the choice to engage in a selected activity schedule (e.g., 

choice or no-choice)? 

3 

 
 
 
 
Participants 

METHOD 

Three children with a medical diagnosis of ASD participated in the study. All children 

received applied behavior analytic services at a community-based EIBI program (see Plavnick et 

al., 2020, for a description). All participants had assessments conducted in the EIBI program 

using the Verbal Behavior Milestones Assessment and Placement Program (VB-MAPP; 

Sundberg, 2008). Scores from their most recent assessments are included. Sammy was a 4-year-

old female with a score of 134.5 points (out of a possible 170.0 points) on her most recent VB-

MAPP conducted in October 2024. Jordan was a 5-year-old male and scored 163.5 points in a 

VB-MAPP conducted in December 2024. Grant was a 4-year-old male with a score of 127.5 

points on his most recent VB-MAPP conducted in October 2024. All participants’ daily 

programming included activity schedules to support their treatment goals. 

Prior to the beginning of the study, potential participants were assessed for picture-to-

item correspondence and independent leisure item completion skills. Picture-to-item 

correspondence was assessed by showing a picture of each leisure item and observing whether 

the participant obtained the correct item from an array of three. Independent leisure item 

completion was assessed by instructing participants to engage with each item and observing 

whether participants independently completed each item.  

Participant assent was obtained and assessed in an ongoing manner throughout the study. 

Researchers consulted with each participant’s supervising Board Certified Behavior Analyst ® 

and behavioral technicians to identify behaviors for each participant that might indicate dissent 

(e.g., crying, flopping). Sessions would be terminated upon a participant’s engagement in 

4 

 
 
behavioral indicators of dissent; however, no sessions were terminated due to behavioral 

indicators of dissent during the study. 

Setting 

Sessions were conducted at a table with a chair in an EIBI classroom where roughly eight 

children between the ages of two and five years were receiving individual direct instruction with 

behavioral technicians at any given time. Sessions were conducted in the afternoons after 

participants’ lunch breaks and during the initial portion of their afternoon treatment. Sessions 

were conducted each school day, with the exceptions of absences due to illness, participants 

sleeping during afternoon treatment sessions, scheduled clinic breaks (e.g., holiday break, spring 

break), and unscheduled clinic closures due to inclement weather. 

Materials 

Three types of activity schedules were used in this study: a choice activity schedule, a no-

choice activity schedule, and a control activity schedule. Three-ring binders were used to 

construct each activity schedule, and different colors were used for each binder to facilitate 

participant discrimination between conditions (see Appendix). The choice activity schedule had 

green paper inserts on the front of the binder and on each page within the binder. The no-choice 

activity schedule had yellow paper inserts on the front of the binder and on each page within the 

binder. The control activity schedule had a white paper insert on the front of the binder and white 

or neutral pages within the binder. The choice and no-choice activity schedules each contained 

four pages with a small Velcro dot in the center to attach pictures of the leisure items. The control 

activity schedule contained one to 16 pages with pictures of leisure items already attached on 

each page. 

5 

 
 
During all sessions, leisure items were placed on a countertop five feet in front of the 

table at which participants completed their schedules. Five leisure items (i.e., dinosaur egg 

puzzle, ocean puzzle, hedgehog peg board, shapesorter, ladybug pegs) were available in the 

choice and no-choice activity schedules. These leisure items were included in the study because 

they had a discrete beginning and end. Each leisure item was modified to consist of eight pieces 

to control for response effort across activities, and they were held constant across participants to 

ensure differences in responding were a result of the act of choice-making within a schedule. The 

control activity schedule consisted of one to 16 neutral leisure items with discrete beginnings and 

ends that were freely available in the clinic. All leisure items included in the study were of 

unknown relative preference to participants. Each leisure item had a picture that depicted it 

against a white background. Each picture was laminated and had a small Velcro dot attached to 

its opposite side. Datasheets, pens, a stopwatch, and a video camera were also present in sessions 

for data collection purposes. 

Measurement 

Dependent Variables   

Two dependent variables were measured in this study. The first dependent variable was 

percentage of correct responding. A correct response was defined as a participant engaging in a 

specific step in the task analysis (see Tables 1, 2, and 3) within 5 seconds from the previous step 

without adult assistance (Deel et al., 2021). Percentage of correct responding was calculated by 

dividing the number of steps correct by the number of steps correct plus incorrect (total number 

of steps) and multiplying by 100 to yield a percentage (Ledford & Gast, 2018). 

The second dependent variable was number of selections of each type of activity schedule 

during the concurrent operant assessments. Selection was defined as a participant touching or 

6 

 
 
 
pointing to a specific activity schedule within 5 s (i.e., choice, no-choice, and control) when 

instructed to, “Pick one.” 

Interobserver Agreement and Procedural Fidelity 

Each session was video recorded, and each video was later reviewed to obtain measures 

of interobserver agreement (IOA) and procedural fidelity. Point-by-point IOA was recorded for 

at least 30% of all sessions in all conditions by a second observer (Ledford & Gast, 2018). 

Interobserver agreement of the first dependent variable, percentage of correct responding during 

choice and no-choice activity schedules, was calculated by dividing the number of agreements by 

agreements plus disagreements and multiplying by 100 to yield a percentage (Ledford & Gast, 

2018). Agreement was defined as both observers independently recording the same response on a 

step in a task analysis. Disagreement was defined as both observers independently recording 

different responses on the same step in a task analysis. Interobserver agreement of the second 

dependent variable, number of selections during the concurrent operant assessments, was also 

calculated by dividing the number of agreements by agreements plus disagreements and 

multiplying by 100 to yield a percentage (Ledford & Gast, 2018). Agreement was defined as 

both observers independently recording the same selection response. Disagreement was defined 

as both observers independently recording different selection responses. 

Interobserver agreement in all participants’ baseline sessions was 100%. In Sammy’s 

teaching conditions, average IOA was 99% (range 97-100%). In Jordan’s teaching conditions, 

average IOA was 95% (range 90-100%), and in Grant’s teaching conditions, average IOA was 

98% (range 95-100%). Interobserver agreement in concurrent operant assessments was 100% 

across all participants. Data collection is ongoing, and upon completion IOA data will be 

available here: https://osf.io/mehfn/?view_only=1b2958ece6ce4a5bb1b5d71ddbe547cd.  

7 

 
 
Procedural fidelity was recorded for at least 30% of all sessions for all conditions. A 

second observer scored whether the researcher implemented each session correctly according to 

a pre-developed implementation checklist for each condition (see Tables 4, 5, 6, and 7). A correct 

response was defined as the observer recording that the researcher engaged in the correct step of 

the checklist.  An incorrect response was defined as the observer recording that the researcher 

engaged in a response that did not correspond to the appropriate step of the checklist. Procedural 

fidelity was calculated by dividing the number of correct steps by the number of correct steps 

plus incorrect steps and multiplying by 100 to yield a percentage (Ledford & Gast, 2018). 

Procedural fidelity in baseline sessions for Sammy and Jordan was 100%. In Grant’s baseline 

sessions, average procedural fidelity was 90% (range 71-100%). Across all participants, 

procedural fidelity in teaching conditions was 100%. Procedural fidelity in concurrent operant 

assessments was an average of 96% (range 88-100%) for Sammy and 100% for Jordan. Data 

collection is ongoing, and upon completion procedural integrity data will be available here: 

https://osf.io/mehfn/?view_only=1b2958ece6ce4a5bb1b5d71ddbe547cd.  

Procedures 

A noncurrent multiple baseline design across participants with an embedded alternating 

treatments design was used to evaluate responding in baseline and teaching conditions (Ledford 

& Gast, 2018). A simultaneous treatments design was used in the concurrent operant assessments 

to assess preferences across choice, no-choice, and control activity schedules (Ledford & Gast, 

2018).  

Baseline 

Each baseline session began with the vocal instruction to complete four leisure items 

without an activity schedule present (e.g., “Play with the shapesorter, ladybug, hedgehog, and 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
dinosaur puzzle”) (Brodhead et al., 2018; Deel et al., 2021). The order of leisure items in each 

instruction was randomized using RANDOM.ORG (https://www.random.org/lists/) and no 

prompting or putative reinforcement were provided. Sessions were terminated if the participant 

did not engage with any of the leisure items within 30 s of the instruction (Deel et al., 2021). 

Sessions were also terminated if the participant did not complete the sequence within 10 minutes 

of the instruction, or the participant completed all available leisure items within 10 minutes of 

the instruction. 

Teaching 

In the teaching condition, participants were taught to complete activity schedules both 

when the sequence of leisure items was pre-determined (no-choice) and when participants were 

required to select the sequence (choice) of leisure items. After baseline, participants were first 

exposed to a choice activity schedule in order to yoke the order of leisure items in the first no-

choice activity schedule to the order in the first choice activity schedule, as a way to isolate the 

features of choice-making within schedules (Deel et al., 2021). The remaining series of choice 

and no-choice activity schedules were randomized using a random list generator 

(https://www.random.org/lists/).  

Backstep error correction was used to teach participants to follow both types of activity 

schedules (Frost & Bondy, 2002). If a participant engaged in an incorrect response, the 

researcher used physical guidance to prompt the participant to complete the last independent 

correct response and the next step (the original incorrect response). At that point, the participant 

was given the opportunity to continue the activity schedule independently. The procedures 

specific to the choice and no-choice conditions are described in more detail below. 

9 

 
 
 
Choice Condition. Prior to activity schedule completion, participants were required to 

select leisure items and the order in which they were to be included within the activity schedule. 

Specifically, participants were presented with a horizontal array of five pictures of the leisure 

items. Pictures were identical in size and spaced equidistant from each other, and the order of 

pictures in the array was randomized prior to each session using a random list generator 

(https://www.random.org/lists/). Similarly, the array of the physical leisure items placed on the 

countertop were randomized prior to each session using the same random list generator. 

Participants were instructed to “Pick one,” from the array of pictures. If the participant did not 

make a selection within 5 s, the instruction was repeated. After making a selection, if the 

participant did not independently place the selected picture on the corresponding page in the 

activity schedule and turn the page, they were physically prompted to engage in these steps. The 

remaining four pictures were moved one position to the right, with the farthest picture to the 

right moving to the first place in the array on the leftmost side. The instruction “Pick one” was 

again presented. This process continued until four selections had been made and the choice 

activity schedule was fully assembled. Once the activity schedule was constructed, the 

instruction, “Do your schedule,” was delivered and participants were then able to complete the 

activity schedule. Backstep error correction was provided if the participant did not engage in the 

initial response within 5 s of the instruction or if errors occurred throughout the schedule. 

No-Choice Condition. The no-choice activity schedule was identical to that of the choice 

activity schedule, with the following modifications. First, the order of leisure items in this 

activity schedule was yoked to the sequence of leisure items in the participant’s most recent 

choice activity schedule (Deel et al., 2021). For example, if in the first choice activity schedule a 

participant selected the following leisure items in order: ladybug, hedgehog, ocean puzzle, and 

10 

 
 
 
shapesorter, the following no-choice sequence was yoked to this sequence (i.e., ladybug, 

hedgehog, ocean puzzle, shapesorter). Participants were still required to assemble the schedules 

in this condition in an attempt to equate response effort across teaching conditions, again to 

isolate the effects of choice-making. But instead of the participant making selections, each 

picture of the corresponding leisure item was presented, and the participant was required to place 

it on the corresponding page of the activity schedule and turn the page. This process continued 

until all four leisure items were placed in the activity schedule. The instruction to begin the 

activity schedule and backstep error correction procedures were identical to the choice condition. 

Concurrent Operant Assessment 

Following completion of the teaching phase, participants were exposed to the concurrent 

operant assessments to evaluate preference for the choice or no-choice activity schedules. 

Concurrent operant assessments were conducted with three activity schedules including choice, 

no-choice, and control activity schedules. 

Each session began with the presentation of the choice, no-choice, and control activity 

schedules placed equidistant from each other in a horizontal array on the table in front of the 

participant. The order of activity schedules presented in each array was randomized using a 

random list generator (https://www.random.org/lists/). The participant was instructed to “Pick 

one” and given 5 s to make a selection, after which the remaining schedules were removed from 

the table and participants were immediately exposed to the activity schedule corresponding to 

each selection. 

Choice and no-choice activity schedules were identical to those described in the teaching 

condition. The control activity schedule consisted of one page with a picture of a neutral leisure 

item already placed on the page prior to each session (Deel et al., 2021). The neutral leisure item 

11 

 
 
 
remained the same in each session and was held constant across participants. If a participant 

selected the control activity schedule, the researcher delivered the instruction, “Do your 

schedule,” and implemented the backstep error correction procedures identical to choice and no-

choice activity schedules. Response effort across the activity schedules was not controlled for, as 

the choice and no-choice activity schedules consisted of four leisure items and the control 

activity schedule consisted of one leisure item. 

Effort Modification. Upon analysis of Sammy’s and Jordan’s initial selections, the 

control activity schedule was manipulated to increase response effort relative to the choice and 

no-choice activity schedules. Those modifications are described in more detail below. 

First Modification. In Sammy’s sixth session, Jordan’s fourth session, and Grant’s fourth 

session, the control activity schedule increased from one leisure item to eight leisure items. 

These leisure items were held constant across sessions and participants. The control activity 

schedules remained at eight leisure items, until the second modification in Jordan’s case. 

Second Modification. Beginning in Jordan’s eleventh session, the control activity 

schedule increased from eight leisure items to 16 leisure items. These leisure items were held 

constant across sessions. 

Bias Modification. After we modified Jordan’s control book to include 16 leisure items, 

we observed a pattern of potential selection bias, indicated by repeated selection of the middle 

item in the array. Beginning in his 16th session, Jordan was instructed to stand five feet from the 

table with the three activity schedules already arranged in a randomized, horizontal array. Jordan 

was then instructed to “Pick one,” and approach the table to make a selection. After a selection 

was made, all procedures continued as previously described. 

12 

 
 
 
 
Sammy 

RESULTS 

Teaching. Sammy engaged in 0% correct responding in all three baseline sessions (see 

Figure 2). With the introduction of an activity schedule (choice condition), an immediate 

increase to 82% correct responding was observed. Across five choice activity schedules, Sammy 

engaged in a range of 82-100% correct responding. In Sammy’s second teaching session and first 

exposure to the no-choice condition, she demonstrated 89% correct responding. Across five no-

choice activity schedules, Sammy engaged in a range of 89-97% correct responding. 

Concurrent Operant Assessments. Sammy selected the control activity schedule in the 

first five sessions (see Figure 3). In the sixth session, and first modification of the control activity 

schedule, Sammy selected the choice activity schedule. Sammy selected the control activity 

schedule in the seventh and eighth sessions, but her responding shifted again towards the choice 

activity schedule in the ninth and 10th sessions. In the remaining nine sessions, Sammy selected 

the no-choice activity schedule. 

Sammy engaged in a range of 97-100% correct responding in completion of three choice 

activity schedules when selected, and a range of 89-100% in completion of nine no-choice 

activity schedules when selected (see Figure 2). 

Jordan 

Teaching. In Jordan’s first baseline session, he demonstrated 50% correct responding 

(see Figure 2). He demonstrated 0% correct responding in the second session and again 

demonstrated 50% correct responding in the third session. Responding decreased as the fourth 

session he responded 0%, 25% in the fifth session, and finally 0% in the sixth and seventh 

sessions. Upon introduction of an activity schedule (choice condition), Jordan demonstrated an 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
increase to 84% correct responding. Across six choice activity schedules, Jordan demonstrated a 

range of 84-100% correct responding. In Jordan’s second teaching session and first exposure to 

the no-choice condition, he demonstrated 82% correct responding. Across six no-choice activity 

schedules, Jordan engaged in a range of 82-97% correct responding. 

Concurrent Operant Assessments. Jordan selected the control activity schedule in the 

first three sessions (see Figure 3). In the fourth session, and first modification of the control 

activity schedule, Jordan selected the choice activity schedule. Jordan selected the control 

activity schedule in the fifth session, the no-choice activity schedule in the sixth session, and the 

choice activity schedule in the seventh session. Jordan again selected the control activity 

schedule in the eighth, ninth, and 10th sessions. In the 11th session, and second modification to 

the control activity schedule, Jordan selected the choice activity schedule. Jordan selected the no-

choice activity schedule in the 12th session, the control activity schedule in the 13th session, the 

choice activity schedule in the 14th session, and the no-choice activity schedule in the 15th 

session. In the four selections of the choice activity schedule, Jordan engaged in a range of 97-

100% correct responding. In the three selections of the no-choice activity schedule, Jordan 

engaged in a range of 97-100% correct responding. 

In sessions 11 through 15, Jordan selected the activity schedule positioned in the middle 

of the array. Therefore, the bias modification was introduced in Jordan’s 16th session. From a 

distance of five feet from the table, Jordan approached and selected the control activity schedule 

in the 16th and 17th sessions. Jordan selected the choice activity schedule in the 18th session, the 

no-choice activity schedule in the 19th session, and the choice activity schedule in the 20th and 

21st sessions. Jordan selected the no-choice activity schedule in the 22nd session, and the choice 

activity schedule in the 23rd session. In the choice activity schedules selected in sessions 18, 20, 

14 

 
 
 
21, and 23, Jordan engaged in 97-100% correct responding (see Figure 2). In the no-choice 

activity schedules selected in sessions 19 and 22, Jordan engaged in 100% correct responding. 

Beginning in the 18th session, Jordan’s responding returned to selections of the activity schedule 

positioned in the middle of the array. Data collection is ongoing, and upon completion data will 

be available here: https://osf.io/mehfn/?view_only=1b2958ece6ce4a5bb1b5d71ddbe547cd.  

Grant 

Teaching. Grant demonstrated 0% correct responding in the first baseline session (see 

Figure 2). In the second and third sessions, responding increased to 25% and 75%, and decreased 

again to 0% in the fourth session. Grant demonstrated a stable, low level of responding at 25% 

for the final five baseline sessions. Upon introduction of an activity schedule (choice condition), 

Grant’s responding increased to 74%. Across six choice activity schedules, Grant engaged in a 

range of 74-100% correct responding. In Grant’s second teaching session and first exposure to 

the no-choice condition, he demonstrated 79% correct responding. Across five no-choice activity 

schedules, Grant engaged in range of 79-97% correct responding. 

Concurrent Operant Assessments. In the first three sessions, Grant selected the control 

activity schedule (see Figure 3). In the fourth session, and first session with the modification of 

the control activity schedule, Grant selected the control activity schedule. Grant selected the 

choice activity schedule in the fifth session, the control activity schedule in the sixth session, and 

the no-choice activity schedule in the seventh session. Grant selected the no-choice activity 

schedule in the eighth session, choice activity schedule in the ninth session, and no-choice 

activity schedule in the 10th session. In the two selections of the choice activity schedule, Grant 

engaged in 94-100% correct responding (see Figure 2). In the three selections of the no-choice 

activity schedule, Grant engaged in 89-100% correct responding. Data collection is ongoing, and 

15 

 
 
 
 
upon completion data will be available here: 

https://osf.io/mehfn/?view_only=1b2958ece6ce4a5bb1b5d71ddbe547cd.  

16 

 
 
 
 
Teaching 

DISCUSSION 

One purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of teaching embedded choice-

making opportunities within activity schedules. All three participants in the current study learned 

to assemble and complete activity schedules, both when given the opportunity to choose the 

sequence of leisure items within the schedule and when choice opportunities were not available. 

During baseline, participants did not engage with leisure items as instructed. During teaching, 

participants learned to assemble and follow the activity schedules to independently complete a 

sequence of four leisure items. 

All three participants demonstrated high levels of correct responding across the teaching 

phase. These data contribute to the existing literature by demonstrating the effectiveness of 

activity schedules as visual supports, and error correction, to increase appropriate independent 

leisure skills in children with ASD within a classroom setting (Akers et al., 2018; Brodhead et 

al., 2018; Deel et al., 2021; Krantz & McClannahan, 2014). Additionally, this study further 

demonstrates the effectiveness of using activity schedules to increase choice-making 

opportunities for individuals with ASD (Deel et al., 2021; Watanabe & Sturmey, 2003). A benefit 

of incorporating choices in activity schedules for young children with ASD includes increasing 

opportunities to engage in the discriminated operant of choice-making, which promotes 

independence and autonomy. Additionally, behavior analysts have an ethical responsibility to 

promote the self-determination of their clients (Behavior Analyst Certification Board, 2020), and 

choice opportunities can allow practitioners to implement activity schedules based on child 

preferences. For example, Sammy selected activity schedules in which she did not have to make 

choices in assembling the schedules (i.e., no-choice).      

17 

 
 
Concurrent Operant Assessments 

Preference. A second purpose of the study was to evaluate preferences between choice, 

no-choice, and control activity schedules. In an attempt to replicate Deel et al. (2021) as closely 

as possible, our control activity schedule initially consisted of one leisure item. Before 

modifications were made, Sammy, Jordan, and Grant exclusively selected the control activity 

schedule in their first five, three, and three sessions, respectively. The first session was the 

participants’ first exposure to the control activity schedule. Therefore, we hypothesize each 

participant selected the control activity schedule because of its novelty compared to the choice 

and no-choice activity schedules. We hypothesize participants continued to select the control 

activity schedule after the first session because once selected and completed, participant 

responding was under the control activity schedule with lower response effort compared to the 

choice and no-choice activity schedules. That is, a control activity schedule that was completed 

with less response effort in less time was more likely to be selected than choice and no-choice 

activity schedules. For example, the first modification to increase response effort of the control 

activity schedule in comparison to the choice and no-choice activity schedules effectively shifted 

Sammy’s selection responses. In Jordan’s case, after completing his first selected control activity 

schedule with one leisure item, he was observed saying, “That’s it?” Similarly, in the first and 

second sessions, Grant was observed saying, “This is so easy,” after completing the control 

activity schedule. Conversely, when Grant selected the control activity schedule after its first 

modification to increase response effort, he was observed saying, “There’s so many here,” as he 

completed the schedule. 

When response effort of the control activity schedule was initially increased beyond the 

putative response effort of the choice and no-choice schedules, Sammy’s selections shifted away 

18 

 
 
from the control activity schedule. Though Jordan similarly shifted responding, he again 

allocated his selections to the control activity schedule, even with increased response effort. For 

Jordan, it is possible the additional response effort of schedule assembly in both choice and no-

choice activity schedules could have influenced responding towards the control activity schedule. 

Additionally, it is possible Jordan’s continued selections of the control activity schedule after 

response effort was increased were under the stimulus control of the initial control activity 

schedule containing one leisure item. That is, responding may not have been under the control of 

relevant features of the control activity schedules as modifications were made. 

Finally, when response effort of the control activity schedule was further increased to 16 

leisure items, Jordan’s selections varied across control, choice, and no-choice activity schedules. 

Upon this second modification to response effort (sessions 11 through 15), Jordan demonstrated 

a selection bias towards the activity schedule positioned in the middle of the array. However, 

Jordan did not demonstrate a selection bias in the initial 10 sessions. We hypothesize when 

response effort of the control activity schedule consisted of one or eight leisure items, Jordan’s 

pattern of responding indicated preference for the control activity schedule regardless of the 

choice or no-choice activity schedules also available. However, when response effort increased 

to 16 leisure items, Jordan’s responding did not reflect a clear preference, as demonstrated by the 

position bias. Therefore, we instructed Jordan to approach the stimuli from a distance of five 

feet. This modification shifted Jordan’s responding away from the activity schedule positioned in 

the middle of the array for two sessions. However, Jordan again selected schedules positioned in 

the middle of the array for the following sessions. It is possible responding was not under the 

control of relevant features of the activity schedules. It is also possible that responding did not 

indicate a clear preference because the stimuli included were not relevant to the individual. 

19 

 
 
Sammy’s pattern of selections indicated a relative preference for no-choice activity 

schedules, as she allocated responding consistently to the no-choice activity schedules across 

nine sessions. Data collection with Jordan is ongoing, but currently his responding indicates a 

relative preference for control activity schedules. Between the choice and no-choice activity 

schedules, Jordan’s allocated responses indicate a slight preference for choice-making 

opportunities within activity schedules. 

The three participants in Deel et al. (2021) did not demonstrate a similar pattern of 

response allocation to the control activity schedules in the concurrent operant assessments as 

seen in the current study. The participants in the current study exclusively selected the control 

activity schedule before its modifications, and even after modifications increasing response effort 

had been made. Selections of the control activity schedules could be an artifact of the stimuli we 

selected to include in the activity schedules for our participants. It is difficult to identify 

similarities or differences between participants from the current study and Deel et al. (2021), as 

Deel et al. (2021) reported Development Quotients of each participant derived from 

administration of the Mullen Scales of Early Learning (Mullen, 1995), whereas the current study 

reported VB-MAPP scores. In the current study, we attempted to include leisure items that were 

similar in effort to replicate Deel et al. (2021) as closely as possible. However, the close-ended 

leisure items we included in the activity schedules were likely not as developmentally 

appropriate for our participants. Additionally, in Jordan’s case, he selected the control activity 

schedules after the second modification (16 leisure items), which took more than 20 minutes to 

complete. It is possible selection of the control activity schedules functioned as negative 

reinforcement in the form of escape or avoidance of treatment engaged in more difficult skill 

acquisition. 

20 

 
 
Schedule Completion. Previous research evaluating preference for choice-making 

opportunities within activity schedules did not continue measurement of correct responding as 

participants completed their selected schedules (Deel et al., 2021). A third purpose of the current 

study was to evaluate accuracy of schedule completion during the concurrent operant 

assessments. Sammy, Jordan, and Grant maintained high levels of correct responding when 

engaging in choice and no-choice activity schedules during the concurrent operant assessments. 

Continued measurement of schedule completion in the concurrent operant assessments 

demonstrated maintenance of both choice and no-choice activity schedule completion for all 

participants. That being said, we hypothesize Sammy demonstrated a slightly decreasing trend in 

responding in the final four sessions as she was observed to attend to stimuli in the environment 

such that it required implementation of the error correction procedure. These stimuli included 

other clients engaging in interfering behaviors such as screaming and property destruction, and 

other clients engaging in putatively reinforcing activities such as jumping on a trampoline 

nearby. 

Limitations 

Several limitations were identified, one being we did not identify mastery criteria for 

teaching sessions before conducting concurrent operant assessments. Rather, we assessed each 

individual participant’s performance with the choice and no-choice activity schedules through 

ongoing visual analysis of data to guide our decisions in progressing to the concurrent operant 

assessments. Future researchers might consider identifying mastery criteria to aid in replications 

of experimental control across participants. Similarly, the current study did not define nor 

identify criteria for preference. We continued preference assessments with each participant until 

a stable pattern of selection was demonstrated, to observe changes in preference over time 

21 

 
 
(Auten et al., 2024; Deel et al., 2021). We recommend future researchers identify and set criteria 

to define a stable pattern of preference over time to promote consistency and replication across 

participants. 

A potential limitation of this study was in the environmental arrangement of research 

sessions, which took place in a classroom where eight children with ASD between two and five 

years of age were receiving individual behavioral instruction. Though this setting more closely 

resembled typical learning environments (e.g., classroom), we recognize the environmental 

variables outside of our experimental control that may have influenced responding. This 

limitation was particularly present in Sammy’s final sessions.  

Another limitation was the physical characteristics of the control activity schedules as 

modifications were made to increase response effort. The type of pages within the control 

activity schedule altered the size of the binder relative to the choice and no-choice activity 

schedules. Additionally, the added leisure items were then also present on the countertop. For 

example, in the first session where the control activity schedule increased from one to eight 

leisure items, both Sammy and Jordan selected the choice activity schedule. These physical 

characteristics of the control activity modifications may have influenced responding, as both 

participants changed responding without actually contacting the increased response effort of the 

newly modified control activity schedule. We suggest future researchers present an array of 

colored picture cards depicting the choice (e.g., green), no-choice (e.g., yellow), and control 

(e.g., white) conditions in the concurrent operant assessments to increase the likelihood that 

responding is under control of relevant stimuli associated with each selection. 

Finally, the varied response efforts of the control activity schedules in the concurrent 

operant assessments likely influenced participant responding. Future researchers, however, might 

22 

 
 
systematically investigate how response effort influences choice-making in the context of 

activity schedules. Additionally, specific procedural variations to implement in concurrent 

operant assessments when a participant demonstrates preference for the control condition are not 

clear across the literature (Auten et al., 2024). In the context of our study, we suggest future 

research conduct the control activity schedules identical to baseline sessions, with a vocal 

instruction to play with the neutral leisure activities, similar to Deel et al. (2021), and continue 

measurement of correct responding with the same task analysis used in baseline. This would 

provide an opportunity to measure and compare responding in the control condition to 

responding in baseline sessions. Also, it could potentially reduce the influence of response effort 

on selections as participants would be instructed to engage with four leisure items (the same 

number of leisure items in both the choice and no-choice activity schedules) without an activity 

schedule present. 

The current study demonstrated the idiosyncratic and dynamic nature of preferences in 

the context of activity schedules with or without choice-making opportunities among young 

children with ASD. Several variables may influence preference for an intervention or procedure 

at any given time, but findings from this study further support the individualization of behavior 

analytic treatment regarding activity schedules. 

23 

 
 
 
 
REFERENCES 

Akers, J. S., Higbee, T. S., Gerencser, K. R., & Pellegrino, A. J. (2018). An evaluation of group 

activity schedules to promote social play in children with autism. Journal of Applied 
Behavior Analysis, 51(3), 553-570. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.474 

Akers, J. S., Higbee, T. S., Pollard, J. S., Pellegrino, A. J., & Gerencser, K. R. (2016). An 

evaluation of photographic activity schedules to increase independent playground skills 
in young children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 49(4), 954-959. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.327 

Armendariz, V., & Hahs, A. D. (2019). Teaching leisure activities with social initiations through 

video prompting. Journal of Behavioral Education, 28, 479-492. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-019-09320-1 

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 

Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (2020). Ethics code for behavior analysts. 
https://bacb.com/wp-content/ethics-code-for-behavior-analysts/ 

Betz, A., Higbee, T. S., & Reagon, K. A. (2008). Using joint activity schedules to promote peer 
engagement in preschoolers with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41(2), 
237-241. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2008.41-237 

Brodhead, M. T., Courtney, W. T., & Thaxton, J. R. (2018). Using activity schedules to promote 

varied application use in children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 
51(1), 80-86. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.435 

Brodhead, M. T., Yeon Kim, S., Rispoli, M. J., Sipila, E. S., & Savana Bak, M. Y. (2019). A pilot 
evaluation of a treatment package to teach social conversation via video-chat. Journal of 
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49, 3316-3327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-
019-04055-4 

Bryan, L. C., & Gast, D. L. (2000). Teaching on-task and on-schedule behaviors to high-

functioning children with autism via picture activity schedules. Journal of Autism and 
Developmental Disorders, 30(6), 553-567. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005687310346 

Carlile, K. A., Reeve, S. A., Reeve, K. F., & DeBar, R. M. (2013). Using activity schedules on 

the iPod touch to teach leisure skills to children with autism. Education and Treatment of 
Children, 36(2), 33-57. http://www.jstor.org./stable/42900199 

Cihak, D. F. (2011). Comparing pictorial and video modeling activity schedules during 

transitions for students with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum 
Disorders, 5(1), 433-441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2010.06.006 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Deel, M. N., Brodhead, M. T., Akers, J. S., White, A. N., & Miranda, D. R. G. (2021). Teaching 

choice-making within activity schedules to children with autism. Behavioral 
Interventions, 36(4), 731-744. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1816 

Frost, L., & Bondy, A. (2002). The picture exchange communication system training manual (2nd 

ed.) Pyramid Educational Consultants. 

Haahr, M. (2025). RANDOM.ORG: True random number service. Retrieved from 

https://www.random.org/lists/ 

Kirkpatrick, M., O’Guinn, K. N., Carrillo Vega, R., Akers, J. S., Davis, T. N., & Avery, S. K. 

(2023). Systematic review of video activity schedules to teach autistic people. Journal of 
Behavioral Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-023-09535-3 

Knight, V., Sartini, E., & Spriggs, A. D. (2015). Evaluating visual activity schedules as evidence-
based practice for individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism & 
Developmental Disorders, 45(1), 157-178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-014-2201-z 

Krantz, P. J., & McClannahan, L. E. (2014). Picture activity schedules. In Tarbox, J., Dixon, D. 

R., Sturmey, P., & Matson, J. L. (Eds.), Handbook of Early Intervention for Autism 
Spectrum Disorders (pp. 271-292). Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
1-4939-0401-3_14 

Ledford, J. R., & Gast, D. L. (2018). Single case research methodology: Applications in special 

education and behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Routledge. 

MacDuff, G. S., Krantz, P. J., & McClannahan, L. E. (1993). Teaching children with autism to 
use photographic activity schedules: Maintenance and generalization of complex 
response chains. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26(1), 89-97. 
https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1993.26-89 

Morrison, R. S., Sainato, D. M., Benchaaban, D., & Endo, S. (2002). Increasing play skills of 
children with autism using activity schedules and correspondence training. Journal of 
Early Intervention, 25(1), 58-72. https://doi.org/10.1177/105381510202500106 

Mullen, E. M. (1995). Mullen scales of early learning (AGS ed.). Circle Pines: American 

Guidance Service Inc. 

Osos, J. A., Plavnick, J. B., & Avendaño, S. M. (2021). Assessing video enhanced activity 

schedules to teach social skills to children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of 
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 51(9), 3235-3244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-
020-04784-x 

Plavnick, J. B., Bak, M. Y., Avendaño, S. M., Dueñas, A. D., Brodhead, M. T., & Sipila, E. S. 
(2020). Implementing early intensive behavioral intervention in community settings. 
Autism, 24(7), 1913-1916. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361320919243 

25 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sundberg, M. L. (2008). Verbal behavior milestones assessment and placement program: The 

VB-MAPP. Concord, CA: AVB Press. 

Tincani, M., Brodhead, M. T., & Dowdy, A. (2024). ABA promotes autonomy and choice of 

people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Journal of Developmental and 
Physical Disabilities. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-024-09949-5 

Watanabe, M. & Sturmey, P. (2003). The effect of choice-making opportunities during activity 

schedules on task engagement of adults with autism. Journal of Autism and 
Developmental Disorders, 33(5). 535-538. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025835729718 

White, A. N., Oteto, N. E., & Brodhead, M. T. (2023). Providing choice-making opportunities to 

students with autism during instruction. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 55(4), 260-
267. https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599211068386 

26 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 1 Activity Schedule Binders 

APPENDIX 

Choice Activity Schedule 

No-Choice Activity Schedule 

Control Activity Schedule 

27 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 1: Baseline Task Analysis 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

Obtain activity #1 

Bring activity to table 

Complete activity 

Put activity away 

Obtain activity #2 

Bring activity to table 

Complete activity 

Put activity away 

Obtain activity #3 

10.  Bring activity to table 

11.  Complete activity 

12. 

Put activity away 

13.  Obtain activity #4 

14.  Bring activity to table 

15.  Complete activity 

16. 

Put activity back on shelf 

28 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2: Choice Condition Task Analysis 

1.   Select a picture OR open book  
2.   Open book OR select a picture  
3.   Place picture in book  
4.   Turn page OR select a picture  
5.   Select a picture OR turn page  
6.   Place picture in book  
7.   Turn page OR select a picture  
8.   Select a picture OR turn page  
9.   Place picture in book  
10.   Turn page OR select a picture  
11.   Select a picture OR turn page  
12.   Place picture in book  
13.   Close book  
14.   Obtain completed book  
15.   Open book  
16.   Touch or look at picture #1  
17.   Obtain corresponding activity  
18.   Bring activity to table  
19.   Complete activity  
20.   Put activity away  
21.   Turn page  
22.   Touch or look at picture #2  
23.   Obtain corresponding activity  
24.   Bring activity to table  
25.   Complete activity  
26.   Put activity away  
27.   Turn page  
28.   Touch or look at picture #3  
29.   Obtain corresponding activity  
30.   Bring activity to table  
31.   Complete activity  
32.   Put activity away  
33.   Turn page  
34.   Touch or look at picture #4  
35.   Obtain corresponding activity  
36.   Bring activity to table  
37.   Complete activity  
38.   Put activity away  
39.   Close book  

29 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 3: No-Choice Condition Task Analysis 

1.   Open book OR pick up picture #1  
2.   Pick up picture #1 OR open book  
3.   Place picture in book  
4.   Pick up assigned picture #2 OR turn page  
5.   Pick up assigned picture #2 OR turn page  
6.   Place picture in book  
7.   Pick up assigned picture #3 OR turn page  
8.   Pick up assigned picture #3 OR turn page  
9.   Place picture in book  
10.   Pick up assigned picture #4 OR turn page  
11.   Pick up assigned picture #4 OR turn page  
12.   Place picture in book  
13.   Close book  
14.   Obtain completed book  
15.   Open book  
16.   Touch or look at picture #1  
17.   Obtain corresponding activity  
18.   Bring activity to table  
19.   Complete activity  
20.   Put activity away  
21.   Turn page  
22.   Touch or look at picture #2  
23.   Obtain corresponding activity  
24.   Bring activity to table  
25.   Complete activity  
26.   Put activity away  
27.   Turn page  
28.   Touch or look at picture #3  
29.   Obtain corresponding activity  
30.   Bring activity to table  
31.   Complete activity  
32.   Put activity away  
33.   Turn page  
34.   Touch or look at picture #4  
35.   Obtain corresponding activity  
36.   Bring activity to table  
37.   Complete activity  
38.   Put activity away  
39.   Close book  

30 

 
 
 
 
 
Yes  

No  

N/A  

Table 4: Baseline Procedural Fidelity 

Prior to Session  

1.  Materials are accessible 
to researcher and/or 
participant  

During Session  

2.  Researcher establishes 
attending from participant 
(“Get ready” or similar Sd)  
3.  Instructs child to do four 
activities  
4.  Terminates session after 
30 seconds if participant does 
not respond  
5.  Terminates session if 
participant does not complete 
the sequence within 10 
minutes  
6.  Terminates session if 
participant completes all 
available activities in under 
10 minutes  
7.  Does NOT prompt during 
sessions  
8.  Does NOT provide 
reinforcement during 
sessions  

31 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
Table 5: Choice Condition Procedural Fidelity 

Prior to Session  

1.  Materials are accessible to 
researcher and/or participant  

During Session  

Yes  

No  

N/A  

2.  Researcher establishes attending 
from participant (“Get ready” or 
similar Sd)  
3.  Researcher presents correct 
number of pictures in the array to the 
participant (Starting with 5, then 
rearranges 4, then rearranges 3, etc.)  
4.  Says “Pick one” to the participant     
5.  Researcher repeats direction after 
5 seconds if participant does not 
respond  
6.  If no response after 15 sec, the 
researcher prompts participant’s hand 
closer to array without prompting 
him/her to make a selection  
7.  Researcher provides correct 
prompt level to assemble selected 
picture in first available page of 
activity schedule  
8.  Researcher rearranges the 
remaining pictures of the array and 
presents correct number of pictures  
9.  Researcher gives Sd: “Do your 
schedule” after schedule is assembled  
10. Researcher provides error 
correction if errors occur or if the 
participant does not engage in correct 
responding within 5 sec of the Sd  
11. Researcher provides neutral 
statement after completion of the 
schedule (“Thanks for doing that”)  

32 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
Yes  

No  

N/A  

Table 6: No-Choice Condition Procedural Fidelity 

Prior to Session  

1.  Materials are accessible to 
researcher and/or participant  

During Session  

2.  Researcher establishes attending 
from participant (“Get ready” or similar 
Sd)  
3.  Researcher presents one picture at a 
time to participant  
4.  Researcher provides correct prompt 
level to assemble picture in first 
available page of the activity schedule, 
second page, etc.  
5.  Researcher presented pictures in 
correct order (order matches that of 
most recent choice session)  
6.  Researcher gives Sd: “Do your 
schedule” after schedule is assembled  
7.  Researcher provides error correction 
if errors occur or if the participant does 
not engage in correct responding within 
5 sec of Sd  
8.  Researcher provides neutral 
statement after schedule completion 
(“Thanks for doing that”)  

33 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
Table 7: Concurrent Operant Assessment Procedural Fidelity 

Prior to Session  

1.  Materials are accessible to researcher 
and/or participant  

During Session  

Yes  

No  

N/A  

2.  Researcher establishes attending (“Get 
ready” or similar Sd)  
3.  Researcher presents all three activity 
schedules to participant (choice, no choice, 
and control books)  
4.  Researcher says “Pick one”  
5.  Researcher repeats “Pick one” if 
participant does not make a selection within 
5 seconds  
6.  Researcher prompts participant’s hand 
closer to the array (without making a specific 
selection) after 15 seconds of no responding  
7.  Researcher clears the table and presents 
appropriate materials according to 
participant’s selection  
8.  Researcher follows same procedure as in 
CHOICE condition if participant selected 
CHOICE book  
9.  Researcher follows same procedure as in 
NO CHOICE condition if participant 
selected NO CHOICE book  
10.  Researcher presents CONTROL book if 
participant selected CONTROL book  
11. Researcher gives Sd: “Do your schedule” 
after schedule is assembled (for CHOICE 
and NO CHOICE books) or assembled with 
one picture inside (CONTROL book)  
12. Researcher provides error correction if 
errors occur or if the participant does not 
engage in correct responding within 5 sec of 
Sd  
13. Researcher provides neutral statement 
after completion of CHOICE and NO 
CHOICE and CONTROL activity schedules 
(“Thanks for doing that”)  

34 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
Figure 2 

Graph of Correct Responding in Baseline, Teaching, and Concurrent Operant Assessments 

35 

 
 
 
Figure 3 

Display of Selection Distributions in Concurrent Operant Assessments 

36