To assess concurrent response-consequence alternatives, define the responses and consequences available to Benoit at the same time. Measure allocation by response count, time, or another declared unit and record obtained consequence amounts for each option. Track changeovers, effort, quality, delay, history, access, prompts, and preference. One allocation ratio cannot establish the matching law, reinforcement value, or a causal relation.

Define concurrent availability

Specify when Benoit can choose either response and contact its consequence without leaving the choice context. Exclude periods when one option is unavailable or inaccessible.

Choose the allocation unit

Use response count, time, engagement intervals, or another unit suited to the decision. State how switches, simultaneous engagement, omissions, and interrupted periods are handled.

Measure obtained consequences

Record actual deliveries, amounts, delays, quality, duration, probability, and access for each option. Programmed schedules and obtained outcomes can differ.

Track bias and effort

Document position, device, partner, familiarity, response effort, changeover cost, instructions, history, and client preference. These variables can shift allocation independently of outcome frequency.

Interpret ratios cautiously

Show raw totals and relative shares. Similar ratios in one sample are descriptive. Formal matching analysis needs repeated conditions, adequate exposure, and a model suited to the data.

Use this sequence to assess concurrent response consequence alternatives

Define Benoit's simultaneous options, select an allocation unit, measure obtained outcomes and changeovers, audit access and effort, show raw and relative data, and use the result to improve meaningful choice.

Build Benoit's concurrent-alternatives assessment sheet

Create one versioned concurrent-alternatives assessment sheet for the leisure-choice participation review. Include Benoit's priority, response class, consequence class, learning history, response and nonresponse states, time windows, value, availability, effort, delay, magnitude, quality, duration, rules, prompts, access, health, integrity, agreement, raw cells, invalidity, missingness, withdrawal, direct experience, result, uncertainty, decision, owner, correction, and review trigger. Store only decision-relevant information with role-limited access.

Validate Benoit's contingency evidence

Reproduce Benoit's 26/40, 14/40, 18/30, and 12/30 raw counts and the 0.65, 0.35, 0.60, and 0.40 shares. Verify that both alternatives were concurrently available in every eligible choice. Audit setup, delay, quality, duration, prompts, changeovers, prior exposure, and missing outcomes. Report Benoit's preference separately. A longer series across changing programmed or natural conditions would be needed for a formal matching analysis.

Keep Benoit's dependency, function, and experience separate

Measure response-consequence dependency within eligible response and nonresponse states. Evaluate later functional effects with evidence suited to that question. Ask Benoit separately about clarity, effort, comfort, usefulness, burden, and whether assessment should continue. A strong conditional difference can coexist with an unwanted or inaccessible arrangement. Positive experience can also improve while the measured dependency stays unchanged.

Work through Benoit's example

Across 40 eligible leisure choices, Benoit selects music 26 times and puzzles 14 times, giving response shares of 0.65 and 0.35. He obtains 18 music outcomes and 12 puzzle outcomes, giving obtained-consequence shares of 0.60 and 0.40. The ratios are close in this sample. Music also starts faster and requires fewer setup steps, so the record cannot attribute allocation to obtained frequency alone. Preserve every planned and valid unit, raw count, denominator, response state, nonresponse state, consequence delivery, contact, value, prompt, rule, access condition, integrity result, withdrawal, direct report, system failure, correction, and unresolved item. This fictional example demonstrates one assessment control. It offers no universal contingency, behavioral function, diagnosis, trait, treatment effect, legal conclusion, coverage decision, payment promise, or outcome guarantee.

Address Benoit's main assessment risk

Calling the 0.65 and 0.60 shares matching ignores one session's small sample, dynamic feedback between behavior and obtained outcomes, unequal effort, delay, quality, and Benoit's stated preference. Review response and consequence definitions, comparison states, timing, base rates, learning history, value, availability, effort, rules, prompts, access, health, context, client experience, authority, and causal scope separately. A large conditional difference cannot repair an inaccessible or ethically unsound arrangement.

Keep contingency concepts and authority clear for Benoit

The ABAI Basic Principles page lists behavioral contingencies in higher-education content. The BACB Test Content Outline covers contingencies, reinforcement, schedules, rule-governed behavior, measurement, assessment, and intervention as examination content. The current BACB Ethics Code addresses competence, involvement, consent and assent when applicable, assessment, risk, data, documentation, and evaluation for covered people. These sources do not create licensure, payer approval, or an individualized plan for Benoit.

Treat contingency as more than close timing for Benoit

Lattal's conceptual review presents contingency as a functional relation with empirical, theoretical, and practical dimensions. Poling and Li critique vague technical use of the word. For Benoit, define the response, consequence, dependency, time window, history, and claimed functional effect instead of letting the label carry missing evidence.

Use sequential measures cautiously for Benoit

McComas and colleagues discuss challenges in calculating contingencies from natural-environment sequential data. Valid response and nonresponse states, comparable windows, base rates, temporal precision, and raw cells matter. A conditional difference can describe Benoit's sampled events while leaving reinforcement, behavioral function, and causality unresolved.

Preserve rules, alternatives, and mixed control for Benoit

Tarbox and colleagues discuss rule following and report a small teaching study. Reed and Kaplan explain relative response allocation and obtained reinforcement in matching analyses. These sources help frame rules, prompts, direct outcomes, concurrent alternatives, bias, and effort. They provide no universal protocol or source-of-control conclusion for Benoit.

Preserve treatment scope, AAC, assent, and access for Benoit

The CASP public summary supplies high-level ABA behavioral-health-treatment scope for autistic people, with licensed detail outside this page. ASHA's AAC portal says AAC users should always have access to their communication tools or devices. Breaux and Smith provide assent-focused guidance in an evolving evidence base. Follow governing sources and keep health care, food, water, bathroom access, communication, mobility, rest, relationships, safety, and emergency help available to Benoit.

Choose Benoit's next bounded action

Benoit chooses faster puzzle setup and keeps both options available, turning the assessment into an access improvement rather than an effort to force equal allocation. Record the qualified owner, supporting evidence, effective date, current supports, health and access state, implementation check, accessible explanation, disagreement route, and reassessment trigger. Preserve the original assessment when people, systems, responses, consequences, or preferences change. A new arrangement creates a dated version rather than an error in Benoit's earlier performance.

Close Benoit's contingency review

Review the concurrent-alternatives assessment sheet with Benoit, the qualified behavior analyst, relevant partners, access owners, and specialists named in the manifest. Confirm that close timing stays separate from response dependency and later functional effect, raw cells and denominators are reproducible, AAC and basic access remain protected, health questions stay with qualified professionals, and conclusions remain bounded to the sampled response, consequence, time, and context. Keep this page draft and noindex until every required review is complete.

Related resources

Sources