Design Standards for Single-case ResearchApplication Exercise for Design Standards

Independent variable is actively manipulated

Baseline◦ At least 5 data points

Each phase has at least five data points.

Opportunity to assess three demonstrations of basic effect at three different points in time.

Analysis Rubric

For each graph

◦ Read the introductory slide(s)

◦ Determine if the design allows interpretation of experimental control.

◦ Do NOT focus the extent to which the DATA support a functional relation, but on whether the DESIGN allows assessment of functional relation

Instructions

Choice Analysis Choosing among multiple alternatives has been shown to be an effective

reinforcer for individuals with developmental disabilities (Fisher, Thompson, Piazza, Crosland, & Gotjen, 1997).

In the current investigation, access to choice was used to reduce destructive behaviors by implementing a full-session DRL contingency in which rates of problem behavior were required to be at or below a criterion level in order for the reinforcer (i.e., choosing an activity) to be delivered (Deitz & Repp 1973 ).

Dependent Variables: Combined inappropriate behaviors, including: aggression (hitting, biting, kicking, and pinching others), SIB (head slapping and head banging), and property destruction (throwing or tearing items).

Independent Variable: Activity selected by staff versus activity selected by participant.

Graph 1

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27

Sessions

Com

bine

d In

appr

opria

te B

ehav

ior

per

Min

ute

Participant’s Choice Staff Choice Staff ChoiceParticipant’s Choice

1

Graph 1

EVALUATE DESIGN Meets design standardMeets with ReservationDoes not meet design std.

EVALUATE EVIDENCEStrongModerateNo Evidence

1 Meets

2

3

4a

4b

5a

5b

6

7a

7b

8

9

10

Queries

Continuous Reinforcement versus Multiple Schedule with an Extinction (EXT) Component

• The primary purpose of the current investigation was to replicate the findings of Hanley et al. (2001) by evaluating the efficacy of a multiple-schedule arrangement for maintaining low mand rates.

• Dependent Variables:• Mand– a mand was defined as picking a card that had the words “attention please”

written on it off the floor and placing it in the hand of the therapist (participant’s mother); the rate of mands during periods of reinforcement and EXT were recorded separately.

Graph 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48

Man

ds p

er M

inut

e

30

/30

30

/270

30

/30

30

/102

30

/68

30

/45

30

/68

30

/102

30

/153

30

/153

30

/153

Baseline (FR-1)

Multiple Schedules (SR+/EXT) BL (FR-1)

Multiple Schedules (SR+/EXT)

2

Graph 2

EVALUATE DESIGN Meets design standardMeets with ReservationDoes not meet design std.

EVALUATE EVIDENCEStrongModerateNo Evidence

1 Meets

2 Meets with Reservation

3

4a

4b

5a

5b

6

7a

7b

8

9

10

Queries

Effects of Direct Instruction on Self-Help Skills

Children diagnosed with progressive neuro-degenerative disorder typically lose skills rather than obtain new ones. Continuing acquisition of skills is important to such children, however, as it can impact postsecondary options. In particular, the acquisition of self-help skills is critical as they contribute to the possibilities for persons with severe DD to live in less restrictive community-based settings and to allow personal choice (Matson, Smalls, Hampff, Smiroldo, & Anderson, 1998; Arnold-Reid, Schloss, & Alper, 1997). Ultimately, this affects quality of life (Matson, Taras, Sevin, Love and Fridley, 1990). Instruction using a system of least-to-most prompts was introduced for two tasks in combination with delivery of positive verbal praise after each completed step in the task analysis and delivery of an edible reinforcer following completion of the entire task.

Dependent Variables: Completing all of the steps of a task analysis for:• making a sandwich• making a bed

Graph 3

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31

Session

Make a Bed

Sandwich

BL Instruction 3Pe

rcen

t Tas

k A

naly

sis

Step

s

Graph 3

What would it take to make this design

experimental?

Are “probe” points convincing?

Functional Analysis of Self-Injury

• Previous research has suggested self-injury may be maintained by escape from task demands. • In Graph 4a the impact of allowing self-injury to access escape from demands compared to a

control condition in which no demands were made and self-injury was ignored.

• In Graph 4b the impact of teaching a socially appropriate, functionally equivalent response to escaping task demands was assessed.

• Topographies of SIB include, but are not limited to:– Hand to head hitting– Hand Biting– Fist to chin hitting

Graph 4

0

1

2

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Sessions

Tota

l SIB

per

min

ute

Demand Control Demand

4A

Graph 4a

How would you improve this design?

0

1

2

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Sessions

Tota

l SIB

per

min

ute

Demand ControlControl Demand

Graph 4a

0

1

2

3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Sessions

Tota

l SIB

per

min

ute

Demand ControlControl Demand

Graph 4a

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Sessions

Tota

l SIB

per

min

ute

FCTBaseline Baseline FCT4B

Graph 4b

• Functional Analysis of Inappropriate Behavior

• Individuals diagnosed with autism may engage in both “essential” behaviors (e.g., stereotypy, rituals) and “associated” problem behaviors (e.g., aggression and self-injurious behavior [SIB]).

• Results of previous research suggest that characteristic behaviors of autism and other destructive behaviors may be maintained by the same function, different functions, or interrelated reinforcement contingencies.

• In the current investigation, we identified the variables that maintained both “essential” and “associated” behaviors and evaluated the effects of function-based treatment when applied to each function.

• We first conducted two separate functional analyses.• The purpose of the first analysis was to determine the maintaining variables of behaviors that are

characteristic of a diagnosis of autism.• The purposes of the second analysis were to determine (1) the maintaining variables of other

destructive behaviors and (2) whether the functions identified by the first and second analyses were maintained by the same function, different functions, or interrelated reinforcement contingencies.

• Finally, we conducted function-based treatment analyses.

Dependent Variables:• Compulsive behavior: opening and shutting doors and turning lights on and off

without permission, straightening/organizing objects, watching doors close, nose picking (i.e., placing any part of the finger into the nostril)

• Aggression-hitting, kicking, slapping, grabbing, biting, grabbing • SIB: biting any part of the arm, hand, or leg

Graph 5

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Sessions

Com

bine

d In

appr

opria

te B

ehav

ior

Per

Min

ute

Demand

Ignore

Attention

Toy Play

Tangible

5A

Graph 5a

Is there a difference in Inappropriate Behavior under

Tangible versus Toy Play conditions?

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53Sessions

OC

D B

ehav

iors

per

Min

ute

Walking Baseline

NCR+Block Walking Baseline

NCR+Block WalkingBaseline

NCR+Block

5B

Graph 5b

Design: ABABAB

Why were the last A and B phases added?

Effects of Modeling (Treatment) on Correct Naming of Unfamiliar People

• Children with autism exhibit significant deficits in social interaction (DSM-IV).• Research has indicated that modeling may enhance the acquisition of specific social skills

(Charlop & Milstein, 1989; Gena, Krantz, McClannahan, & Poulson, 1996).• The identification of unfamiliar faces is an important prerequisite skill for social interaction.

• The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the effects of therapist modeling for teaching the names of unfamiliar people to a 4-year old male diagnosed with autism.

• Dependent Variable:• Data were collected on the percent of correct responses

Graph 6

Vivian

0

20

40

60

80

100

Tammy0

20

40

60

80

100

Dr. Cathy20

40

60

80

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Per

cent

age

of C

orre

ct It

em N

amin

gBL

Sessions

Modeling Lollipop for R+

Lollipop for R+

Lollipop for R+

6

Graph 6

Functional Analysis of Aggression/ Manding

The purpose of the current investigation was to determine the environmental variable responsible for aggressive behavior when initial functional analysis yielded low levels of aggressive behavior across all conditions. Further, several treatment conditions were evaluated to determine an effective treatment.

• Dependent Variables• Aggression- Biting, scratching, pinching, hitting, kicking, punching • Manding- Any appropriate request to interact with items or the therapist

Graph 7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Session

Agg

ress

ion

per

Min

ute

BL

FCT choice + EXT

NCR+EXT7A

Graph 7a

Is there a difference in Inappropriate Behavior under NCR+EXT versus

FCT Choice + EXT conditions?

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Session

Agg

ress

ion

per

Min

ute

BL

FCT choice + EXT

NCR+EXT

Graph 7a

Is there a difference in Inappropriate Behavior under NCR+EXT versus

FCT Choice + EXT conditions?

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Session

Man

ds p

er M

inut

e

BL

FCT Choice + EXT

NCR+EXT

7B

Graph 7b

Is there a difference in Behavior Mands per min NCR+EXT versus

FCT Choice + EXT conditions?

Is there a difference in Mands per Min under Baseline versus

FCT Choice + EXT conditions?

Effects of Response Interruption on Stereotypic Behavior• Stereotypic behaviors (e.g., twirling objects) are essential features of autism.• Caregivers often discourage or interrupt these problematic behaviors because they interfere

with social and academic development. • Destructive behaviors (e.g., aggression) are often associated with autism, but are not essential

features of the disorder. • Fisher et al. (1996) proposed an operant model of these essential and associated symptoms of

autism in which (a) stereotypic behaviors are often maintained by automatic reinforcement; (b) caregivers regularly interrupt these responses, which produces deprivation from automatic reinforcement and can evoke more destructive responses (e.g., aggression); (c) caregivers may then stop interrupting the stereotypies, which may function as reinforcement for destructive behavior, and (d) analyzing the functions of both the essential (e.g., stereotypies) and associated (e.g., aggression) features of autism can lead to more effective treatments.

An initial functional analysis that included toy play, ignore, attention, demand, and tangible conditions indicated that destructive behaviors were reinforced by escape from demands, but descriptive data also suggested that interruption of stereotypic behavior also evoked destructive behavior, so the following analyses were conducted.

Graph 8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41Sessions

Com

bine

d In

appr

opria

te p

er m

inut

eControlInterrupt InterruptFCT 8

Graph 8

What would it take to allow analysis of experimental effect?

Note combination of Control, FCT into one phase given common data pattern

A B C A

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65Sessions

Com

bine

d In

appr

opria

te p

er m

inut

eControlInterrupt InterruptFCT FCT

Graph 8

Effects of Time Out plus Competing Behavior Instruction

• Children are generally expected to sit quietly (often with limited access to preferred stimuli) in waiting rooms (e.g., in a Doctor’s office or similar setting), but children with autism often display behaviors that are highly incompatible with the expectations of a waiting room, including hyperactivity, a short attention span, and stereotypic or compulsive behaviors (e.g., frequent activity changes, repetitive vocalizations and motor movements, rearranging furniture).

• Dependent Variables:• Rate of out of seat behavior• Percentage of session with out of seat behavior

• Experimental Design:• Treatment Analysis for out of seat behavior

• Combination of multiple reversals design (ABCBC)• A: Ignore Baseline• B: Competing Items condition alone (Alternative behavior to waiting)• C: Competing Items plus Time out (TO)

Graph 9

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35

Session

Out

of S

eat B

ehav

ior

per

min

ute

Baseline Competing Items (CI)

CICI + TO CI + TO

9

Graph 9

ABAB

Analysis of Non-Contingent Reinforcement plus Extinction

The purpose of this assessment was to increase in-seat behavior and compliance during schoolwork. Baseline conditions in which destructive behavior resulted in 30-sec of escape were compared to several treatment conditions. Treatment conditions consisted of NCR with and without extinction, and DRA with extinction for destructive behavior and reinforcement for compliance.

Dependent Variables:Destructive behavior:

SIB: self-hitting/biting, body slamming, & headbangingAggression: hitting, kicking, pushing, grabbing, scratching, pinching others Disruption: banging on surfaces (6 inches or more), throwing objects, property

destruction, turning over furniture, elopement (moving furniture to get away)Spitting: the release of secretions from the mouth with force, saliva play

  SOB: cursing, insulting statements/gestures Tantrum: duration of crying and/or screaming (3sec delay)

Compliance: completion of demand before the physical prompt  In seat: duration of appropriate sitting with buttocks in chair, feet not kicking instructor/chair/table, chair flat on floor

Graph 10

0

20

40

60

80

100

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

SESSIONS

PE

RC

EN

T O

F A

PP

RO

PR

IAT

E IN

- S

EA

T B

EH

AV

IOR

NCR + EXT

Baseline

10

Graph 10

EVALUATE DESIGN Meets design standardMeets with ReservationDoes not meet design std.

EVALUATE EVIDENCEStrongModerateNo Evidence

1 Meets

2 Meets with Reservation

3 Does not meet

4a Does not meet

4b Meets

5a Meets

5b Meets

6 Meets

7a Does not meet

7b FCT-NCR (meets)FCT-BL (does not meet)

8 Does not meet

9 Meets

10 Meets

Queries