This current study was designed to explore the effects of two different math intervention selection techniques. One technique, BEA, has been used to determine effective and efficient academic interventions in past research (Witt et al., 2000; Mong & Mong, 2011; Everett et al., 2016), but research comparing this selection technique to others is lacking, especially regarding math interventions. Similarly, there is little research on the effectiveness of allowing students to simply pick their own interventions based on personal preference (Carson & Eckert, 2003). Because of this, this study aimed to examine (a) if a math intervention selected by BEA leads to better results than baseline, (b) if a math intervention selected by a student leads to better results than baseline, and (c) if a BEA-selected math intervention or a student-selected math intervention would lead to better math performance on outcome probes. Through BEA, the most efficient and effective intervention was selected for each of the four participants. Following BEA, the participants selected the intervention they liked the most and would like to continue using. These two interventions, along with baseline probes, were continued with each student during extended analysis. All students exhibited better math performance than baseline during both BEA- and student-selected interventions. Generally, students showed more math gains during the student-selected intervention, but showed quicker improvement during the BEA-selected intervention.