Guided Notes & Qs_ Chapter 9_ Withdraw and Reversal

docx

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

Report
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order paradigm, wherein A refers to baseline conditions and the second A condition occurs when an intervention is withdrawn.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.