Concurrent Chains Arrangement: Let Learners Choose

A concurrent chains arrangement is a way to let a learner show what they prefer. You set up two clear choices. The learner picks one, and their pick tells you what they want.

This matters for BCBAs, RBTs, and teachers who value choice. It works even for learners with few words. They can vote with their body, their hand, or their feet. That makes it a strong tool for assent and shared decisions in care.

What a concurrent chains arrangement is#

At its heart, this is a preference test. You give the learner two paths that are both always open. Each path leads somewhere clear and different. The learner's repeated choice shows their true preference.

Matt Harrington rates it as his top preference assessment. He likes it more than a common method called an MSWO.

This is, without a doubt, my personal favorite preference assessment. It beats MSWO out of the water. From the talk — Matt Harrington

The strength is that the choice is real and ongoing. The learner is not asked once. They can choose again and again, whenever they want.

How to set it up with two clear choices#

The setup is simple. You build two clear options and make sure each leads somewhere the learner understands. Harrington often uses two spots in the therapy room.

What if we had one area of our therapy room that was devoted to pairing, engagement, relaxing, chilling, maybe even alone time? And the other area of the session room, excuse me, that was associated with work tasks or, you know, working through whatever challenging thing the client was choosing to work through, right? From the talk — Matt Harrington

So one area means work. The other means a break or calm time. The learner walks to the area they want. That choice becomes clean, easy data for you to read.

Using it to measure assent#

This tool shines for tracking assent. Assent is a learner's clear "yes" to taking part. A concurrent chains setup turns that yes or no into an action you can see.

What if one button was ascent provision and one button was ascent withdrawal? Well, now we're, once again, creating those clear observable verbal behaviors, pressing one button or pressing the other button. From the talk — Matt Harrington

One button means "yes, I want to join." The other means "no, I want to stop." Both are always there. The learner's press gives you real data on assent, moment by moment.

A tool for shared decisions#

Other experts point to the same method for trauma-informed and respectful care. It lets learners help steer their own treatment. Dr. Jen Austin ties it to well-known research.

Greg Hanley's work on concurrent chains arrangements is a great example of this. From the talk. Dr. Jen Austin

Dr. Rajaraman describes how a learner can use their feet to pick a treatment path.

The concurrent chains arrangement which is like a broader preference assessment a way for learners to use their feet to go into door number one versus door number two to indicate what type of intervention they might prefer. From the talk. Dr. D2 Rajaraman

This lifts the learner into the driver's seat. They do not just receive care. They help choose the kind of care they get. That respect is at the core of shared decision-making.

Why it beats a one-time preference test#

Many preference tests happen once and then end. You lay out items and the learner picks. That snapshot can miss how feelings shift during a session.

A concurrent chains arrangement stays open the whole time. The learner can choose work now and a break later. Their choices form a living record of what they want. That record is richer than a single vote.

It also fits big choices, not just small rewards. A learner can pick a whole path, like work or rest. They can even pick which person they want to work with. Few other tools capture choices at that level.

Making the choices honest#

For the data to mean anything, both paths must be real. If one door leads nowhere good, the choice is fake. The learner will not trust the setup for long.

So build both options with care. The break area should truly be a break. The work path should lead to real, doable tasks. When both paths deliver, the learner's picks stay honest and useful.

This honesty protects the learner. It also protects your data. A fair setup gives you a clear read on true preference, every time. When both paths are real, the learner keeps trusting the choice.

What the research says#

Studies show learners have clear, readable preferences. In one school study, three fourth graders chose how to practice reading. They used a concurrent chains arrangement to pick their preferred setup. All three chose to practice a passage before reading it aloud to peers (Newell, Ardoin, & Donaldson, 2025).

The method also captures preferences about who delivers care. One study in India used concurrent chains to test caregiver choice in telehealth training. Both matched and distinct trainers reduced problem behavior well. Still, all six caregivers preferred the ethnically matched trainer (Sivaraman et al., 2022). This shows the tool can surface preferences that plain outcome data would miss.

FAQ#

What is a concurrent chains arrangement?

It is a preference test with two always-open choices. Each choice leads to a clear, different result. The learner's repeated pick shows what they truly prefer.

How is it used to measure assent?

You link one choice to "yes, keep going" and one to "stop." The learner picks by pressing a button or moving to a spot. That choice gives you clear, observable data on assent.

Why do some BCBAs prefer it over an MSWO?

The choice stays open the whole time, not just once. It works well for learners with limited words. It also fits treatment decisions, not only picking small rewards.

The same respect for learner choice runs through Clarifying Trauma Informed Care. That talk cites this method as a way to share power with learners.