1. Single-case Intervention Design and Analysis
Complex Designs
Day 2
8:45-10:00
Wendy Machalicek
University of Oregon
Overview of Complex and Unique
Single-case Designs
Acknowledgement: Rob Horner

2. Goals and Assumptions Assumption: Objectives
Fluent with ABAB, Multiple Baseline and Alternating Treatment Designs
Objectives
Define features of Changing Criterion, Multiple- Probe, and Multi-treatment Designs
Apply Single-case Design and Analysis logic to construction of more complex design challenges.

3. Changing criterion design
Appropriate for evaluating instruction/intervention that requires gradual, stepwise change (increase or decrease) in participant behavior
-to increase amt of time boy w/separation anxiety away from mom (Flood & Wilder, 2004)
-to increase food acceptance (Kahng, Boscoe, & Byrne, 2003;Luiselli, 2000)
-to increase teen’s compliance w/medicine (Gorski & Westbrook, 2002)
-to increase reading of adult w/scizchoprhrenia (Skinner, Skinner, & Armstrong, 2000)
-to increase rate of work of adults w/sev/pro. ID (Bates, Renzaglia, & Clees, 1980)
-Reduce cigarette smoking (Edinger, 1978) & excessive coffee drinking (Foxx & Rubinoff, 1979)
McDougall, Hawkins,Brady, Jenkins. (2006). Recent innovations in the changing criterion design: Implications for research and practice in special education. The Journal of SPED, 40, 2-15.

4. Defining Features of Changing Criterion Designs
Within subject analysis
Independent variable needs to have at least four levels
Three demonstrations of effect
Document baseline performance with first IV level
Change the level of the IV and monitor change in DV
Immediacy of change important
Absence of trend and variability important
Repeat level (criterion) change in IV two more times.
Analysis involves same standard as other single-case designs: Three demonstrations of effect across three different points in time.

5. BL: No Reinf Reinf < 17 Reinf < 12 Reinf < 5
Independent Variable: Schedule of Reinf
Level 1: No Reinf
Level 2: Reinf for fewer than 17 events
Level 3: Reinf for fewer than 12 events
Level 4: Reinf for fewer than 5 events.
First Demonstration of Effect
Second Demonstration of Effect
Third Demonstration of Effect
Changing Criterion Analysis:
Stable within phase patterns Five data points per phase
Immediacy of effect
Research Question: Is there a functional relation between contingent delivery of reinforcement for reduced problems behavior and reduction in the level of problem behavior?

6. No Demonstration of Experimental Control
BL: No Reinf Reinf < Reinf < Reinf < 5
No Demonstration of Experimental Control
Third Demonstration is compromised by trend
First Demonstration is Okay
Second Demonstration is compromised by trend

7. Cigarettes per day
BL: 20 Cig Cig Ci g Cig

8. No Demonstration of Experimental Control
BL: No Reinf Reinf < Reinf < Reinf < 5
No Demonstration of Experimental Control

9. Hartman & Hall (1976) recommendations
Pinpoint criterion levels prior to initiating study
Good rule is 10-20% lower or higher for each criterion
Minimum 4 changes in criterion level*
Vary size of criterion changes & length of time participant must maintain responding
Introduce intervention (first criterion change) after stable baseline*
Change criterion level only after stable responding in preceding phase*
Plan to revert to former criterion level for A-B-A embedded design
*guidelines essential

10. Range bound changing criterion (RBCC)
Uses lower and upper criterion. Target behavior must match or exceed lower and at the same time match or be less than higher criterion (McDougall, 2005; McDougall, Hawkins, Brady, & Jenkins, 2006)

11. McDougall, Hawkins, Brady, & Jenkins, 2006)

12. Would you use a Changing Criterion Design
Would you use a Changing Criterion Design? If “yes” draw the design with expected data.
Is there a functional relation between defining self- management criteria for smoking (20, 15, 10, 5) and reduction in the number of cigarettes smoked per day?
Is there a functional relation between number of pages of reading needed to achieve free time, and the number of words read per reading session?
Is there a functional relation between use of FCT and reduction in the level of problem behavior?
Is there a functional relation between use of Ritalin versus Risperdal, and reduction in rate of stereotypy?

13. Activity:
Propose a new research question that would be appropriately addressed via a changing criterion design
Propose a research question that would NOT be appropriately addressed via a changing criterion design
Changing criterion & RBCC good for shaping and differential reinforcement of higher or lower rates of behavior (Alberto & Troutman, 1999); cognitive behavioral mod. such as goal setting w/feedback (Kottler, 2001); self-management procedures (Glynn, Thomas, & Shee, 1973;McDougall, 1998; Watson & Tharp, 2002)
McDougall, Hawkins, Brady, & Jenkins (2006)

14. Multiple Probe Designs

15. Multiple Probe Design: A Variation of Multiple Baseline
Multiple Probe Design (Days version-Horner & Baer, 1978):
A variation of the Multiple Baseline Design in which baseline data are probed at different points in time rather than monitored continuously
Across participant/group behaviors or participant/group of people
Across stimulus conditions (e.g., setting, instructional format)

16. Conditions when Multiple-probe is Used
Probe Data are always collected at the beginning of BL and just before Intervention (at least 3 days).
Probe Data may also be collected at points of intervention in other series within the design.
Data collection is viewed as intrusive/expensive, and initial Baseline data document a stable pattern.

17. Probe
Intervention
Rate of Disengagement

18. Standards for Multiple-Probe
Meet Single Subject Design Standards
5 BL data points
Active manipulation of IV
At least three demonstrations of effect

19. WWC Standards for Multiple Probe Designs
Meets Evidence Standards
Meets Evidence Standards with Reservations
Meet standards for a multiple baseline design
Meets standards
Meets standards with reservations
Overlapping initial pre-intervention sessions (Baseline)
Each case has probe points in the initial three sessions
Each case has at least one probe point in the first three sessions
Probes prior to introducing the independent variable to a given case
Three consecutive points just prior to introducing the independent variable and one probe point every eight sessions
At least one point just prior to introducing the independent variable and one probe point every eight sessions
Probes for subsequent cases when introducing the independent variable to a preceding case
At least one point placed either immediately prior to the first intervention session for the earlier case or once the intervention criterion is reached for the earlier case.

20. Five BL data points for all series (3 overlap)
Meets Design Standard
Five BL data points for all series (3 overlap)
Three
Pre-intervention data points per series
At least one data point per 8 BL sessions
At least one data point per series for Prior-intervention series
Probe
Intervention
Rate of Disengagement
Meets WWC Standards

21. Probe
Intervention

22. Meets WWC Standards With Reservation
Meets Design Standards with reservation
One common BL data point per series
At least one
Pre-Inter data point per series
At least one data point per 8 BL sessions
At least one data point per series for Prior-intervention series
Probe
Intervention
Meets WWC Standards
With Reservation

23. Does NOT Meet WWC Standards
Probe
Intervention
Does NOT Meet WWC Standards

24. Considerations for Multiple Probe
Decreases the logical and fiscal cost of data collection across long Baselines.
Should NOT be viewed as a strong control for measurement effects (Instrumentation… number of times participant experiences measurement)
Number of data points per “probe”
WWC standard
Issues for consideration in the field

25. Testing & Procedural contrast
MB and MP designs suspect to confounding due to contrast between baseline & intervention condition procedures
Prolonged baseline conditions can suppress responding or facilitate responding

26. Testing & Procedural contrast, cont.
To control for these threats….
Use MP design
Minimize length of baseline sessions
Maintain reinforcement schedule similar to intervention phase by reinforcing appropriate behaviors if they happen
Remove unnecessary components of intervention package
Cuvo (1979)

27. Questions and Discussion

28. Combination designs

29. Some common types of combination designs
Multiple Baseline across behaviors & participants
Multiple Probe across participants and adapted alternating treatments design
Alternating treatments design + A-B-A or A-B-A-B
Multiple-baseline designs + A-B-A-B, AATD

30. Combination designs
Can plan for a combination design or happen across it serendipitously (or to regain experimental control)
Address limitations of research design
Response to covariation if it turns out that behaviors, participants, conditions were not as independent as thought
Include A-B-A-B design for current tier and continue monitoring across untreated tiers

31. When to use combination designs
To address internal validity issues
Internal validity demonstrated when IV has effect on DV and effect is replicated within study
With Multiple baseline and multiple probe designs must control for history, maturation, testing, instrumentation, data variability, and reactive intervention, and procedural contrast (# and magnitude of differences between procedures used in 2 adjacent conditions)

32. History & MB/MP designs
Response generalization (Behavioral covariation) across untreated series threatens experimental control
Target behaviors, conditions, or participants that are functionally independent
Identify 4 or more behaviors, conditions, or participants (just in case!)
Combine multiple baseline (or probe design) across behaviors with a multiple baseline (or probe design) across participants

33. History & MB/MP designs, cont.
Response generalization (Behavioral covariation) across untreated series threatens experimental control
If your behavior is reversible & it’s practical & ethical, embed A-B-A-B and follow what happens in all data series

34. Rispoli, Camargo, Machalicek, Lang, Ninci, Strickland, & Sigafoos (2014). FCT and signaled delay to reinforcement to treat problem behavior related to changes in routines in children with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis.

35. Russo & Koegel (1977). A method for integrating an autistic child into a normal public- school classroom. JABA, 10,

36. Cuvo & Klatt (1992). Effects of community-based, videotape, and flash card instruction of community-referenced sight words on students with mental retardation. JABA, 25,
MBD across participants w/embedded ATD

37. Lequia, Machalicek, & Lyons (2013). Enhancing Academic Engagement for
Children with Developmental Disabilities through an Educational Parent Intervention. Behavioral Interventions. DOI: /bin.1369
Nonconcurrent MBD w/embedded ATD

38. Guidelines for combining designs (Gast, 2010)
What is rationale for combining designs? What are limitations of each individual design you want to use?
Select 2 simplest designs that will answer research question(s), control for internal validity threats, & be practical
Identify primary & secondary design

39. Increasing Complexity in Single-Case Designs
Multi-treatment (component analysis) designs
Analysis of multi-component interventions requires careful attention to the Conceptual Model guiding the research and the presumed interaction among variables.
Combined designs

40. Multitreatment Designs
Independent Variable includes multiple elements
Praise + curricular match + fast pacing
Functional communication training + Extinction
DRA + Relationship Development
Goal of component analysis is to assess if all components are needed for the effect

41. Multitreatment Designs
Begin with Baseline
Document problem
Initial demonstration of effect with the whole intervention
All components
Remove one component at a time or
Remove all but one component

42. Multitreatment designs
Similar to withdrawal/reversal designs (A-B-A-B), except 2 or more variables/conditions manipulated when exp phase changes
Only use w/reversible behaviors
Not useful for acquisition studies
Use to develop (e.g., A-B-BC-B-BC) & conduct component analysis of interventions (e.g., A- BCD-BC-BCD-BC-B-BC-B)

43. Multitreatment designs
Parametric analysis E.g., A-B-C-B-C, A-BC-B-BC- B, A-B-B’-B-B’
With or without baseline
Each condition remains in effect for multiple observations (as in withdrawal/reversal designs). Change condition only when data is stable.

44. Multitreatment designs considerations
Remove or add one variable/intervention at a time
Sufficient # of experimental replications
3 replications of functional relation, 4-6 participants preferred (counterbalance order of conditions across participants)
Data needs to consistently change each time you change variable/intervention condition

45. A B A B C D C D
Hanley, Piazza, Fisher, & Maglieri (2005). On the effectiveness of and preference for punishment and extinction components of function-based interventions. JABA, 38,
A B C (D above) B D

46. A B C D A D
McCord, Grosser, Iwata, & Powers (2005). An analysis of response-blocking parameters in the prevention of pica. JABA, 38,

47. ABACABC multitreatment withdrawal
Smith & Ward (2006). Behavioral interventions to improve performance in collegiate football. JABA, 39,
ABACABC multitreatment withdrawal
design
A B A C A BC