Guided Notes & Qs_ Chapter 9_ Withdraw and Reversal
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Ball State University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
630
Subject
Industrial Engineering
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
17
Uploaded by HighnessStraw21110
Ch. 9 Withdrawal and Reversal Design
Non-experimental Variations
Baseline logic serves as the foundation
for all single case design research
The A-B
design, sometimes referred to as the “simple time series design” represents the most
basic non-experimental SCD.
The A-B-A
design is the current standard for demonstrating a functional relation because current
guidelines for methodology indicate there must be a minimum of three potential
demonstrations of effect.
The A-B-A-B
design, also referred to as the “reversal design”, “withdrawal design”, “operant
design”, and “equivalent time series design” has been one of the most frequently used SCDs in
behavioral research.
Withdrawal designs refer to designs that follow the A-B-A-B
condition order paradigm, wherein A
refers to baseline
conditions and the second A condition occurs when an intervention is
withdrawn.
The A-B-A-B design controls for many of the deficiencies associated with the A-B-B
design by
A) ending in an intervention condition which is practically and ethically beneficial
B) providing two opportunities to replicate the positive effects of intervention
The primary limitation of the A-B-A-B design relate to practical and ethical concerns rather than
experimental
considerations – for many practitioners who are responsible for programming
durable behavior changes, even a brief withdrawal of an effective intervention may be deemed
unethical.
When A-B-A-B designs are used it is recommended that multiple participants
be recruited to
improve external
validity.
Variations of the A-B-A-B Design
A-B-C-B-C
(A-B-BC-B-BC)
designs are variations of A-B-A-B designs that can also be used to
compare interventions.
The B-A-B
design is a research design you may use when a student or client exhibits self-
injurious, physically aggressive, or otherwise highly undesirable behaviors.
A-B-A’-B
reversal designs involve reversing intervention contingencies during A2, rather than
simply withdrawing
the intervention.
Quiz
Question 1 0 pts
Strongest threats to internal validity for withdrawal/reversal designs include all of the following
EXCEPT:
History
Carryover effects
Procedural infidelity
Instrumentation
Question 2 0 pts
The primary ethical concern associated with withdrawal designs is:
Removing a successful intervention
Too few replications to demonstrate experimental control
Some interventions are irreversible
Baseline conditions are too long
Question 3 0 pts
External validity of an ABAB design can be improved by:
Having at least three participants
Measuring procedural fidelity
Measuring IOA
Conducting more than three replications
Question 4 0 pts
Unlike withdrawal designs, reversal designs involve:
Reversing intervention contingencies
A second intervention phase
Withdrawal of the intervention
Removing a potentially effective intervention
Question 5 0 pts
Which is the most powerful within-subject design?
ABAB
Changing criterion
BAB
Multiple basline design across behaviors
Question 6 0 pts
In a withdrawal design, when is procedural infidelity most likely to occur?
Immediately after condition changes
Once data are stable
During long baseline conditions
Procedural fidelity is unlikely in withdrawal designs
Question 7 0 pts
When using "ABC Notation," the "B" stands for:
Intervention 1
Baseline
Intervention 2
Withdrawal
Question 8 0 pts
Which of the following is NOT a limitation of an AB design?
Intervention is not withdrawn
Lack of control for internal validity
Lack of control for external validity
Cannon determine functional relationships
Question 9 0 pts
What can researchers do to help avoid attrition in withdrawal designs?
Disclose and describe the withdrawal condition during the consent process
Only collect 3 data points during withdrawal to minimize time without the intervention
Do not tell participants about the withdrawal phase
Do not let participants remove the themselves from the study
Question 10 0 pts
The withdrawal design is not particularly sensitive to which threats to internal validity?
History, maturation, data instability
Procedural infidelity, attrition, maturation
Carryover effects, Hawthorne effect, irreversibility of behaviors
Testing, procedural infidelity, data instability
LA 11: Visual Analysis
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Is the use of tootling effective for decreasing off task behavior in middle school students?
There is a high magnitude of change in levels between the first baseline (A1), the first
intervention (B1), withdraw (A2) and the second implementation of the intervention (B2). The
data pattern is different in A1 from B1 in terms of level despite some variability and slight
ascending trend in B1. The stability in the baseline and withdraw phase allows viewers to easily
predict that the off task behavior would've maintained at the observed level which provides more
evidence as to the functional relationship between the DV and IV. The graph alone provides an
unequivocal demonstration that the IV produced reliable and consistent change in the DV.
The researchers provide multiple opportunities to demonstrate behavior change in the variable,
off task behavior, being measured. This study also surpasses the SCD standard for at least three
demonstrations of temporarily-related and consistent behavior change to establish experimental
control and identify a functional relationship between the DV and IV. The study also follows the
standard for having at least three to five prior to changing conditions which provides both
formative and summative decisions about experimental control.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
There is a change in levels between the first baseline (A1), the first intervention (B1), withdraw
(A2) and the second implementation of the intervention (B2). The data pattern is different in A1
from B1 in terms of level.
The ascending trend in the baseline does provide evidence of a need for intervention. There is
somewhat variability observed in the withdrawal phase. Due to the somewhat variability more
data collection would be needed to prove experimental control and a functional relationship
between the DV and IV.
The graph alone does not provide an unequivocal demonstration that the IV produced reliable
and consistent change in the DV, as a reader I have concerns regarding internal validity and
confounding variables within this study.
The researchers provide multiple opportunities to demonstrate behavior change in the variable,
off task behavior, being measured. This study surpasses the SCD standard for at least three
demonstrations of temporarily-related and but not consistent behavior change. This graph does
not establish experimental control or identify a functional relationship between the DV and IV.
Furthermore, the study does not follow the standard for having at least three to five prior to
changing conditions (i.e., B1). The lack of data points this does not provide formative or
summative visual analysis regarding experimental control.
The high variability of the second implementation of the intervention tootling (B2) does not
show experimental control, in fact it raises concerns for extraneous events. The lack of data
collection points in the first intervention (B1) does not help to clarify if the suspected extraneous
events could be permanent or temporary. Due to the high variability of B2, the data collection
points should’ve been continued to examine whether the variability continued. If the variability
did continue then researchers would have evidence that the intervention needed to be changed
and possible confounding variables be examined.