ReviewJournal of applied behavior analysis2025
Choice versus no choice: Practical considerations for increasing choices.
Review in Journal of applied behavior analysis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Clinical Tutorial on Using a Concurrent Operant Analysis in the Assessment and Treatment of Problem Behavior.Behavior analysis in practice · 2025Article
- Choice versus no choice: Practical considerations for increasing choices.Journal of applied behavior analysis · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Choice involves engaging in a selection response when multiple options are concurrently available. Choices can be incorporated into many components of behavior-analytic treatment such as providing clients with a choice between multiple items, activities, or tasks. We reviewed the main characteristics of 38 behavior-analytic articles that compared choice and no-choice conditions. We coded the experimental arrangements of choice and no-choice conditions and analyzed potential factors affecting preferences for choice and no choice. The findings suggest that the sizing of alternatives from which to choose, the timing of choice opportunities, and the timing of the delivery of the chosen option varied across the studies. Furthermore, preferences for choice shifted with differential reinforcement history and response effort manipulations of choice or no choice. The findings suggest that individual variables should be considered when providing choices, but more research is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.