Investigating the acceptability of behavioral interventions in applied conjoint behavioral consultation: Moving from analog conditions to naturalistic settings

Whereas there exists a vast literature investigating consumer satisfaction ratings of various behavioral interventions, the majority of these studies have been limited to analogue conditions, which may compromise utility and generalization. Additionally, most research has failed to explore multiple-source, multiple-setting data in the investigation of treatment acceptability. This study investigated parent, teacher, and child treatment acceptability ratings derived from field-based conjoint behavioral consultation cases. Data indicate that overall, parents, teachers, and children rated conjoint behavioral consultation-based behavioral interventions as very to highly acceptable. For parents, interventions with a reductive component were rated as more acceptable than interventions using both positive and negative components; no significant differences were found among teacher and child group ratings. For teachers, there was a positive relationship between (a) intervention complexity and treatment acceptability ratings and (b) problem severity ratings and treatment acceptability ratings. Additionally, regression analyses indicate that for teachers, the interaction of complexity and problem severity significantly predicted teacher treatment acceptability ratings, with teacher severity ratings demonstrating greater predictive validity. Implications of these findings and directions for future research are explored.