Structured choice

• Identity and version: Name the component or programme, its edition or protocol where relevant, and the purpose being evaluated.
• Source role: Separate direct comparative evidence, descriptive implementation findings, guidance, theoretical support and firsthand experience.
• Population and setting: Retain the studied age, communication/access characteristics and setting. State when an intended application lies outside them.
• Intended and actual delivery: Record the planned components and dose separately from what was received, by whom, and with what support or interruptions.
• Comparison and other support: Name the actual comparison and concurrent changes. If there is no comparison group or it is unreported, say so rather than supply an assumed usual-care condition.
• Outcome and reporter: Record the outcome, time point and reporter. Keep the young person’s account separate from proxy judgement, and access or participation separate from task performance.
• Fidelity and adaptation: Record whether the core components were delivered and describe adaptations; distinguish an adapted application from the protocol tested.
• Burden and unwanted effects: Record time, effort, practical access, cost or workload where known, alongside refusal, fatigue, distress, restriction and other unwanted consequences. Unreported burden is not evidence of no burden.

This common key applies to the retained source summaries below. Shorter headings such as design, dose or findings are read in that context. The key supplies no missing source data, converts no proxy report into recipient testimony and assigns no new certainty grade.

This is a targeted review of the stated sources, not an exhaustive systematic review or a new certainty assessment. Source-specific access limits remain in the records below.

What can be supported about offering meaningful bounded choices, for whom, under which arrangements and measured outcomes? Separate the availability of alternatives, the person's expression of preference, adult follow-through, performance and experienced agency. These are not interchangeable endpoints.

The source article is partial. This complete profile is new work, not a recovered historical profile. No family-wide certainty grade is assigned. Claims about ethics/process are identified as Phoenix editorial commitments; they are not efficacy results. Full systematic review, human specialist/recipient review and publication approval are not claimed.

A014-S01 — Howell, Dounavi & Storey (2019; online2018). To Choose or Not to Choose? Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders6,63–84.¹

Access and locator: Public full text; methods, definitions, results and design sections inspected. Definitions; Screening and Inclusion Criteria; Results; Research Design.

• Identity and version: Antecedent task or consequence choice;38 single-case studies available through2017. Within-task material choice excluded.
• Source role: Original systematic review; overlapping literature, not38 independent confirmations of A014.
• Population and setting: 171 participants:131 children,40 adults; varied diagnoses/settings.
• Intended and actual delivery: Choice arrangements varied; no common dose or receipt rate.
• Comparison and other support: Assigned tasks/reinforcers; only some comparisons equated preferred outcomes.
• Outcome and reporter: Preference for choice and observed on-task/problem behaviour varied; positive, mixed and undifferentiated findings.
• Fidelity and adaptation: Study-specific quality assessment; no universal implementation standard.
• Burden and unwanted effects: No uniform recipient-reported burden or unwanted-effect estimate. Neutral performance does not establish dislike of choice.

Editorial limit: Supports qualified procedure/outcome-specific interpretation, not generic agency, regulation or educational attainment claims.

A014-S02 — Kestner, Finch & Kolb (2023). Systematic Review of Procedures and Outcomes of Choice-Based Interventions with Children. Education and Treatment of Children46,77–106.²

Access and locator: Public full text; methods, category definitions and daily-context findings inspected. Method; Results; Building Choice Opportunities in Daily Contexts.

• Identity and version: 32 articles/38 experiments published2003–2020:25 asymmetrical reinforcement arrangements and13 daily-context choice experiments.
• Source role: Original systematic review with broader procedural scope than A014.
• Population and setting: Children with/without disabilities; settings and target activities differed.
• Intended and actual delivery: Dose varied. Activity, order, material and reinforcer choices were different interventions.
• Comparison and other support: Baselines/adult-selected alternatives; some yoked comparisons. Other reinforcement manipulations often active.
• Outcome and reporter: Observed engagement, completion or challenging behaviour. Daily-context findings varied; seating-choice study reported more disruption.
• Fidelity and adaptation: No single fidelity/dose estimate; category and actual procedure must be retained.
• Burden and unwanted effects: Behavioural endpoints do not capture all costs or experiences. More social interaction may conflict with the adult-rated endpoint.

Editorial limit: Do not import the92% positive figure for asymmetrical reinforcement as A014 success rate; overlap with S01 is not new replication.

A014-S03 — Dunlap et al. (1994). Choice making to promote adaptive behavior for students with emotional and behavioral challenges. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis27,505–518.³

Access and locator: Original abstract inspected; scanned full article not fully appraised in this batch. Abstract, first and second analyses.

• Identity and version: Academic-task menu choices in two analyses; original1994 report.
• Source role: Direct single-case experimental evidence; abstract-limited extraction.
• Population and setting: Two elementary pupils in first analysis; a third in additional yoked analysis.
• Intended and actual delivery: Tasks related to English/spelling objectives; session dose/received delivery not established from abstract.
• Comparison and other support: Reversal comparisons; third pupil had a no-choice phase yoked to earlier selections. Co-support detail not established.
• Outcome and reporter: Reported increased task engagement and reduced disruption; no broad wellbeing or agency measure established.
• Fidelity and adaptation: Fidelity/adaptations not extracted from abstract.
• Burden and unwanted effects: Costs, refusal and adverse experiences not established from abstract; absence of reporting is not absence of burden.

Editorial limit: Three pupils total; avoid the secondary Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) summary that collapses the two analyses into two pupils. No population-wide estimate.

A014-S04 — Lerman et al. (1997). Effects of reinforcement choice on task responding in individuals with developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis30,411–422.⁴

Access and locator: Original abstract through PubMed/publisher inspected; scanned full study not appraised. Abstract; DOI10.1901/jaba.1997.30-411.

• Identity and version: Choice of reinforcer contingent on responding; not task-choice or comprehensive self-determination.
• Source role: Direct comparative single-case evidence; abstract-limited.
• Population and setting: Six people described as having severe/profound intellectual disabilities; exact ages/settings not extracted.
• Intended and actual delivery: Five highly preferred items identified per person; choice offered between two. Dose/receipt unspecified here.
• Comparison and other support: Therapist-selected items yoked to immediately preceding choice sessions; reversal/multielement designs.
• Outcome and reporter: All six showed similar task response rates across conditions.
• Fidelity and adaptation: Preference controlled; broader fidelity/adaptation detail unavailable in inspected abstract.
• Burden and unwanted effects: Recipient preference for the procedure, harms and workload not established; null performance does not justify withdrawing choice.

Editorial limit: Contrary performance evidence for consequence choice when preferred items already available; no inference that agency is unimportant.

A014-S05 — Elliott & Dillenburger (2016). The effect of choice on motivation for young children on the autism spectrum during discrete trial teaching. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs16,187–198.⁵

Access and locator: Public author manuscript; methods, results and discussion inspected. Manuscript pp6–13; Participants, Procedure, Results, Discussion.

• Identity and version: Reinforcer choice following responding during discrete trial teaching (DTT).
• Source role: Three-child comparison; reported child utterances provide bounded firsthand material.
• Population and setting: Three speaking boys aged4 in home early intensive behavioural programmes plus playschool.
• Intended and actual delivery: Two three-hour periods weekly over6weeks within existing20–30-hour programmes; discrete targets sampled within sessions.
• Comparison and other support: Child versus therapist selects preferred reinforcer; extensive existing teaching, prompting and reinforcement continue.
• Outcome and reporter: Two showed little difference; third showed improved responding and explicitly requested choice. Adult-defined response speed is not self-reported motivation.
• Fidelity and adaptation: Choice timing specified; protocol includes physical prompting. Fidelity estimate not extracted.
• Burden and unwanted effects: Refusal/negotiation when choice denied reported. No comprehensive harm assessment. Manuscript latency wording conflicts with narrative; avoid precise latency-direction claim.

Editorial limit: An observed learning result does not endorse overriding refusal or the entire delivery package; single-child statements are not representative recipient review.

A014-S06 — Ramey, Healy & McEnaney (2025; online14October2024). The Impact of Combined Within- and Across-Activity Choice on the Indices of Happiness and Unhappiness of Autistic Children. Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders9,539–553.⁶

Access and locator: Public full text; methods/results/discussion inspected. Procedure; Measures; Results; Limitations.

• Identity and version: Within/across-activity choice added to DTT already offering reinforcer choice.
• Source role: Three-participant multiple-baseline experiment; limited experimental control acknowledged.
• Population and setting: Three autistic boys at one Irish specialist preschool; functional speech/augmentative and alternative communication (AAC)/Picture Exchange Communication System (PECS) and item selection required.
• Intended and actual delivery: Tutor-led10-minute sessions, usually daily; researcher coached choice provision. Activity choice largely determined order; all tasks still completed.
• Comparison and other support: Baseline already included choice of preferred reinforcer; DTT and staff rotation continued.
• Outcome and reporter: Observed mood indices improved gradually; engagement evidence weak. Staff acceptability differs from direct child appraisal.
• Fidelity and adaptation: Choice coached to100%; DTT fidelity not collected. Baseline allocation called randomized but described as manager-set for tutor training.
• Burden and unwanted effects: Assent/refusal routes documented; no withdrawal reported. Added decisions increased latency for one child; no inference of zero burden.

Editorial limit: Mood indices are proxies, not comprehensive quality-of-life or felt-agency evidence. Task/material preference not controlled; component effects unisolated.

A014-S07 — National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (2021). NG204: Babies, children and young people’s experience of healthcare. Recommendations.⁷

Access and locator: Official indexed recommendation text inspected; first direct open failed, subsequent official search returned relevant text. 1.2 Communication and information;1.3.2–1.3.3 Shared decision making.

• Identity and version: Healthcare communication/shared-decision guidance, not a structured-choice programme.
• Source role: Official guidance; adjacent practice principles, not an efficacy trial.
• Population and setting: Children/young people receiving healthcare; school transfer is Phoenix editorial application.
• Intended and actual delivery: Adapt explanations, offer support/time and respect variable desired involvement; no intervention dose.
• Comparison and other support: No single comparison group or co-support experiment.
• Outcome and reporter: Recommendations do not estimate classroom attainment or symptom improvement.
• Fidelity and adaptation: Needs/preferences and accessible communication guide implementation; no measured fidelity effect here.
• Burden and unwanted effects: A person may not want to make the decision and may want help; support resources need planning.

Editorial limit: Used for process and access principles; no legal/capacity determination or school mandate inferred.

A014-S08 — Fridkin & Hurry (2025). The effects of manipulating choice on children’s enjoyment and performance in a reading task. Current Psychology44,6786–6797.⁸

Access and locator: Public full text; methods, results and provenance inspected. Method:Design/Procedure; Results; Ethics declarations.

• Identity and version: Perceived story choice: different cover/opening but the tested main story was the same.
• Source role: Repeated-measures crossover experiment; adjacent mechanism study, not genuine-option test of A014.
• Population and setting: 110 pupils aged8–9 in two English mainstream schools; ten absent pupils excluded.
• Intended and actual delivery: Two classroom exercises24–72hours apart; story/order counterbalanced. No durable programme tested.
• Comparison and other support: Perceived choice versus allocated story; otherwise same task procedure. Participants later debriefed.
• Outcome and reporter: Immediate comprehension and child-rated enjoyment higher; no sustained attainment/agency outcome.
• Fidelity and adaptation: Common tested main text isolates perceived choice; actual distinct alternatives therefore absent.
• Burden and unwanted effects: Voluntary participation/stop opportunity and later disclosure reported; deception/trust cost not comprehensively evaluated.

Editorial limit: Positive task findings cannot justify false choices in practice. Draws on prior thesis;2025 publication is not proof of2025 data collection.

A014-S09 — Kärner, Jüttler, Bottling & Weiß (2026). Participatory learning environments: student and teacher perspectives on classroom decision-making. Learning Environments Research29,22.⁹

Access and locator: Public full text; methods, descriptive results and limitations inspected. Sampling; Student/Teacher sample; Descriptive results; Limitations.

• Identity and version: Survey of perceived self-determined, conditional and externally determined classroom participation.
• Source role: Original descriptive/correlational study; students report experience directly; no treatment.
• Population and setting: 994 students aged14–24 and516 secondary teachers in Germany; student special-school sample excluded.
• Intended and actual delivery: Online2024 survey; no programme delivered or dose.
• Comparison and other support: Separate respondent groups, not matched classroom pairs or randomized intervention comparison group.
• Outcome and reporter: Teachers rated conditional influence higher and external control lower than students. Associations cannot establish causal mechanism.
• Fidelity and adaptation: Questionnaire design; no intervention fidelity. Authors caution against representativeness claims.
• Burden and unwanted effects: Coverage/self-selection and low response limit access; treatment burdens not applicable.

Editorial limit: Useful reason to seek recipient accounts; not an estimate of A014 effectiveness or the experience of all special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) learners.

The closest evidence concerns specific task/order/material-choice arrangements in particular contexts. Consequence choice asks a related but different question. Reviews combine differing procedures and overlap in included studies, so their counts must not be added as independent replications. Abstract-only records S03/S04 support only the stated results and design details, not reconstructed session protocols.

Null task-performance findings are material, but they neither demonstrate a lack of preference for choice nor justify removing meaningful influence. Equally, a positive score on an adult-defined outcome does not establish safety, satisfaction or self-determination. S05 includes child speech as reported by researchers; S06 includes inferred mood and adult acceptability; S08 includes child questionnaire responses to a perceived-choice experiment; S09 includes direct student survey reports from a different age/setting. Each has a different relationship to recipient voice. None substitutes for reviewing this draft with intended Phoenix users.

• Keep the scope as meaningful bounded choice and clarify what each implementation allows the person to change.
• Recast the inherited threat/engagement mechanism and the unsupported generic evidence ratings.
• Keep access, refusal, help choosing and follow-through as observable adult responsibilities.
• Distinguish choice within an activity from choosing whether the activity happens.
• Do not adopt the deceptive perceived-choice manipulation in S08 as a practice example.
• Preserve the S06 internal tension between claimed random allocation and manager-directed tier order; do not claim randomized assignment.
• Preserve the S05 inconsistent latency sentence as an unresolved reporting issue; the working article avoids that numerical/directional endpoint.
• Recover exact full original/master if it later becomes available; compare against this separately versioned reconstruction rather than replacing it silently.
• For stronger appraisal, inspect the complete scanned S03/S04 reports, clarify fidelity and independently check the latest studies' underlying data where warranted.
• Seek educational and communication-access review, with direct recipient input on whether the offered options are real and what declining means.

The matched Encyclopaedia reading targets have been read in full. E059 is a release candidate; E094 is a working correction with adoption pending. Target hashes and conditions are retained separately. Their existence does not constitute a treatment recommendation.

1. 1.

   Howell, Dounavi & Storey (2019; online2018). To Choose or Not to Choose? Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders6,63–84. Source. Definitions; Screening and Inclusion Criteria; Results; Research Design. Access checked 12 September 2026.

   ↩1
2. 2.

   Kestner, Finch & Kolb (2023). Systematic Review of Procedures and Outcomes of Choice-Based Interventions with Children. Education and Treatment of Children46,77–106. Source. Method; Results; Building Choice Opportunities in Daily Contexts. Access checked 12 September 2026.

   ↩1
3. 3.

   Dunlap et al. (1994). Choice making to promote adaptive behavior for students with emotional and behavioral challenges. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis27,505–518. Source. Abstract, first and second analyses. Access checked 12 September 2026.

   ↩1
4. 4.

   Lerman et al. (1997). Effects of reinforcement choice on task responding in individuals with developmental disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis30,411–422. Source. Abstract; DOI10.1901/jaba.1997.30-411. Access checked 12 September 2026.

   ↩1
5. 5.

   Elliott & Dillenburger (2016). The effect of choice on motivation for young children on the autism spectrum during discrete trial teaching. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs16,187–198. Source. Manuscript pp6–13; Participants, Procedure, Results, Discussion. Access checked 12 September 2026.

   ↩1
6. 6.

   Ramey, Healy & McEnaney (2025; online14October2024). The Impact of Combined Within- and Across-Activity Choice on the Indices of Happiness and Unhappiness of Autistic Children. Advances in Neurodevelopmental Disorders9,539–553. Source. Procedure; Measures; Results; Limitations. Access checked 12 September 2026.

   ↩1
7. 7.

   NICE (2021). NG204: Babies, children and young people’s experience of healthcare. Recommendations. Source. 1.2 Communication and information;1.3.2–1.3.3 Shared decision making. Access checked 12 September 2026.

   ↩1
8. 8.

   Fridkin & Hurry (2025). The effects of manipulating choice on children’s enjoyment and performance in a reading task. Current Psychology44,6786–6797. Source. Method:Design/Procedure; Results; Ethics declarations. Access checked 12 September 2026.

   ↩1
9. 9.

   Kärner, Jüttler, Bottling & Weiß (2026). Participatory learning environments: student and teacher perspectives on classroom decision-making. Learning Environments Research29,22. Source. Sampling; Student/Teacher sample; Descriptive results; Limitations. Access checked 12 September 2026.

   ↩1