EDSP 669
Fall 2013
1 of 15
Syllabus EDSP 669-75-5185
Single Subject Research Design
Credits: 3
Fall 2013
Instructor:
Dr. Robert C. Pennington
Department of Teaching and Learning
College of Education and Human Development
Office: Room 141
Phone: 502.852.2633
robert.pennington@louisville.edu
Skype I.D.: robertcpennington
Office Hours: By appointment
Course Time: Thursdays, 8/29-12/12
4:30- 7:00 PM
Course Location: ED201B
Required Texts:
Gast, D. L. (2010). Single-subject research methodology in behavioral sciences. New York: Routledge.
American Psychological Association. (2009). Publication Manual of the American Psychological
Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Required Readings:
Available electronically through the University Library
The instructor reserves the right to delete readings or add readings if new and important papers appear
that are relevant to the topic under consideration.
Technology
Students will use Microsoft Excel to create single subject graphs. They also will access course
content through Blackboard, a Web-based system.
Distance Students will access class at regular scheduled times via Blackboard’s collaborate
software and will need to use a built-in or external microphone and preferably a camera to
contribute during lectures.
Catalog Description
Principles and methods of designing single subject research in educational settings are discussed.
Students will be required to design and defend a research proposal.
Course Purpose
EDSP 669
Fall 2013
2 of 15
This course is designed to provide the learner with readings, discussions, and other learning
experiences in the area of applied behavior analysis research methodology. The intent of the course is
to provide learners with an opportunity to acquire competencies related to planning, implementing, and
analyzing such research. The methodology is not specific to any disabling condition or age level;
rather, a general method is described for conducting and interpreting research where organisms serve as
their own control
Student Learning Outcomes
Kentucky Teacher Standards
Standard 1: THE TEACHER DEMONSTRATES APPLIED CONTENT KNOWLEDGE.
Standard 2: THE TEACHER DESIGNS AND PLANS INSTRUCTION.
Standard 5: TEACHER ASSESSES AND COMMUNICATES LEARNING RESULTS.
Standard 6: THE TEACHER DEMONSTRATES THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TECHNOLOGY.
Standard 7: REFLECTS ON AND EVALUATES TEACHING AND LEARNING.
Standard 10: PROVIDES LEADERSHIP WITHIN SCHOOL/COMMUNITY/PROFESSION. Common
Core Program Standards published by The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC).
Standard 1: Foundations (out of class assignments, quizzes)
Standard 4: Instructional Strategies (research proposal/presentation) Standard 8: Assessment (research
proposal/presentation)
BCBA & BCaBA Behavior Analyst Task List - Third Edition
Content Area 1: Ethical considerations (1-1,1-5, 1-9, 1-11, 1-12)
Content Area 2: Definitions and Characteristics (2-1, 2-2, 2-5, 2-6, 2-7)
Content Area 3: Principles Processes and Concepts (3-10)
Content Area 4: Behavioral Assessment (4-1, 4-2, 4-3)
Content Area 5: Experimental Evaluation of Interventions (5-1, 5-2, 5-3. 5-4)
Content Area 6: Measurement of Behavior (6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 6-4, 6-5, 6-6, 6-7, 6-8, 6-9, 6-10, 6-11, 6-12, 6-13, 6-14)
Content Area 7: Displaying and Interpreting Behavioral Data (7-1, 7-2, 7-3, 7-4, 7-5, 7-6)
Content Area 8: Selecting Intervention Outcomes and Strategies (8-3, 8-4)
Content Area 10: Systems Supports (10.3)
Course Objectives
1. Describe and apply the foundations and rationale for single subject methods. (CEC 1; KTS 1)
2. Formulate research questions for which single subject research methods are appropriate. (CEC 4; KTS
2)
3. Define behaviors for measurement and describe methods for measuring those behaviors. (CEC 8;
KTS 2, 6).
4. Use appropriate methods for calculating inter-observer agreement, including point-by-point and the
gross method. (CEC 8, KTS 5)
5. Describe the requirements, advantages, uses, and limitations of single subject research designs,
including: withdrawal design, reversal design, multiple baseline design, multiple probe design,
changing criterion design, alternating treatments designs, multi-treatment designs, adapted
alternating treatments designs, parallel treatments designs, and combinations of these designs. (CEC
4: KTS 1, 2)
6. Describe the threats to internal validity and describe methods for minimizing and controlling the
effects of extraneous variables. (CEC 8; KTS 2)
EDSP 669
Fall 2013
3 of 15
7. Describe the case for establishing external validity of single subject studies. (CEC 8; KTS 5)
8. Describe the characteristics of a given set of data, display data graphically, and describe data by its
characteristics. (CEC 8; KTS 5, 6, 7 )
9. Describe the rationale, uses, measurement, and calculation of procedural fidelity data. (CEC 8)
10. Define and describe the measurement of the social validity of goals, procedures, and effects of single
subject research studies. (CEC 8; KTS 5)
11. Synthesize course learning in a formal written proposal for a single subject research design,
including an introduction comprising of a literature review methods, and procedures for data
gathering, measurement, and data analysis. (CEC 4; 8; KTS 1, 2, 5,10)
RELATIONSHIP TO THE COLLEGE OF EDUCATION'S CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Conceptual Framework Summary
Shaping Tomorrow: Ideas to Action
The conceptual framework, Shaping Tomorrow: Ideas to Action, embodies a unified rationale for our
diverse programs that includes three constructs: Inquiry, Action, and Advocacy. Under the construct of
Inquiry, and through active engagement and skilled training in methods of rigorous Research,
candidates develop the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to become Critical Thinkers. Scholarship,
informed practice through inquiry and reflection, is performed not in isolation but in communion with
others, both within the university and in the world (Shulman, 2004). Under the construct of Action, and
through continual Practice, candidates develop the knowledge, skills, and dispositions to become
Problem Solvers in the community. They are encouraged to apply knowledge and change practice to
solve real world problems. Under the construct of Advocacy, and through dedicated, committed Service
to their peers, university, community, and world, candidates develop the knowledge, skills, and
dispositions to become Professional Leaders. Our candidates are empowered to participate fully in the
life of the metropolitan community in which we live, to practice social justice, and to seek equity of
educational access for all the constituents.
Conceptual
Framework Constructs
Inquiry
Action
Advocacy
Constructs as Learned
and Applied
Research
Practice
Service
Critical Thinkers
Problem Solvers
Professional Leaders
Exhibits a disposition to
inform practice through
inquiry and reflection
Exhibits a disposition to
improve practice through
information, knowledge,
and understanding
Exhibits a disposition to
affirm principles of social
justice and equity and a
commitment to making a
difference
Constructs Reflected in
Candidates
Unit Dispositions
Reflected in
Candidates
CEHD Diversity Statement
Diversity is a shared vision for our efforts in preparing teachers, administrators, school counselors and
other professionals. Students will be encouraged to investigate and gain a current perspective of
diversity issues (race, ethnicity, language, religion, culture, SES, gender, sexual identity, disability,
ability, age, national origin, geographic location, etc.) related to their chosen fields. Students will also
have the opportunity to examine critically how diversity issues apply to and affect philosophical
positions, sociological issues, and current events in a variety of areas. Students will examine their belief
EDSP 669
Fall 2013
4 of 15
systems and be encouraged to reexamine and develop more grounded beliefs and practices regarding
diversity.
COMPETENCY
Upon completion of this course the learner will be able to discuss the importance of single subject
research designs in the evaluation and clinical practices. The learner will critically analyze research in
applied behavior analysis, as well as design an applied research investigation.
Prerequisites
EDSP 644 or equivalent
Course Format
The course will be conducted in a seminar format; thus, students must come to class meetings
thoroughly prepared to discuss the readings. Class sessions will be characterized as lectures, problem
solving/application activities within small groups, and class discussions.
Policy Regarding Late Assignments
Adherence to timelines is critical within educational/intervention contexts to ensure student safety,
intervention efficacy, and the meeting of federally mandated policy requirements. Students are expected
to demonstrate their ability to plan for and adhere to timelines within this course. Therefore, all
assignments are due by 7:00 PM on the day they are assigned unless the students have contacted the
professor 24 hours in advance and the professor has consented to an adjusted timeline. Of course,
unforeseen events may result in an excused student absence, under these circumstances please let
professor know ASAP.
1.
The following circumstances merit the granting of an excused absence.

Personal illness or illness of a close family member when the attention of the student
is required.

Death of an immediate family member.

Personal appointments for acute or preventive health care. (A student missing a
scheduled examination must document a visit to Student Health or a private physician
in order to qualify for a make up examination. Whenever possible, students should
schedule preventive appointments at times which are minimally disruptive to their
class schedule).

Accident or other unforeseen circumstances making it impossible for a student to
attend a scheduled class. In the event of a traffic accident or car problems,
documentation should be provided, such as police report or repair bill. In most cases,
these circumstances will not result in absence for the entire day..
Students missing work (e.g., quizzes) due to an excused absence bear the responsibility of contacting the
instructor in order to make up the work prior to the start time of the next class period.
Students anticipating an absence for a major religious holiday are responsible for notifying the instructor
in writing of anticipated absences due to their observance of such holidays no later than the last day for
adding a class.
EDSP 669
Fall 2013
5 of 15
Professionalism and Class Routines:
Students are expected to conduct themselves in a professional manner at all times. Professional
behavior includes:
1. Arriving to class on time and prepared and remaining for the duration.
2. Refraining from causing classroom disruptions by turning off cell phones, putting away
unrelated reading materials, and obtaining appropriate childcare.
3. Listening to class members, instructors, and guest speakers with respect.
4. Respecting the diversity of cultures, opinions, and viewpoints in the classroom.
Preparation of Assignments
All written assignments must be prepared in a professional manner. “Professional” is defined as
following APA guidelines (6th ed., 2009). All final products must be typed and submitted
electronically to the instructor. Late assignments are not accepted without prior approval of the
instructor. "Prior approval" is defined as at least 24 hours notice before the due date/time. Word
documents should be saved with the author’s name in the title, followed by the name of the
assignment (i.e., penningtonproposal.docx).
Policy on Instructional Modifications:
Students with disabilities, who need reasonable modifications to complete assignments successfully
and otherwise satisfy course criteria, are encouraged to meet with the instructor as early in the course
as possible to identify and plan specific accommodations. Students will be asked to supply a letter
from the Disability Resource Center to assist in planning modifications.
Disability Resource Center, 852-6938, Rm 120, Robbins Hall.
Evaluation: All grading will be done as objectively as possible; however, in cases of qualitative
assessment, evaluation will be based on the instructor's judgment.
Grading will be done on the following scale:
A = 90% or higher
B = 80-89%
C = 70-79%
D= 69-60%
E or F= less than 60%
Academic Integrity, Cheating, and Plagiarism
The University of Louisville, the College of Education and Human Development, and the Department
of Teaching and Learning expect academic honesty and regard plagiarism and other forms of cheating
as absolutely unacceptable. Students are expected to follow the University of Louisville Students Rights
and Responsibilities handbook. Information on plagiarism and the current procedures and penalties for
academic offenses may be found at http://louisville.edu/dos/policies-and-procedures/code-of-studentrights-and-responsibilities.html. Students are responsible for being informed about current standards.
University Policies and Procedures
http://graduate.louisville.edu/prog_pubs/handbook.pdf
EDSP 669
Fall 2013
6 of 15
Student Handbook
http://www.louisville.edu/student/life/slhandbook/pdf_version/handbook.pdf
Student Code of Conduct
http://www.louisville.edu/student/life/slhandbook/pdf_version/handbook.pdf
Description of Grading
Student performance in this class is measured by a number of different activities.
All students:
1.
Quizzes: 50 points
Students should be prepared to complete a quiz for each class meeting. Quizzes will focus primarily on
material from the readings for that date, but also will include all information covered since the
beginning of the course. Information and application questions will be provided. Quizzes will occur
during the majority of the class sessions.
2.
Visual Analysis Modules: 15 points
Student will complete three online visual analysis modules. Student must receive 90% on each module.
3.
Research Question (s) 10 points
Students will submit a research question (s) and a reference list to the instructor by January, 24, 2012
4.
Introduction 40
Each student is required to write an introduction to his/her research proposal. The introduction should
include a review of a minimum of 10 data-based research articles that have been published in peer
reviewed journals. In the introduction, the student should clearly build a rationale for their proposed
research. This paper should be written in APA style (e.g., Times New Roman font, 1–inch margins)
Note: This assignment may be submitted, at a minimum of 7 days in advance of the scheduled due
date, for instructor feedback.
5.
Brief Report on Methods and Peer Review: 10
Each participant will provide a brief (3-5) minute presentation on the proposed methods for their study
and respond to peer feedback. Presentations will include research question, response measurement,
design, and a brief description of baseline and treatment conditions.
6.
Research Proposal and Supporting Items 60
Each student is required to write an applied research proposal. The proposal should use a single subject
research design, employ at least three subjects, be written in APA style (2009), and review the most
recent body of literature (minimum of 10 data based studies) directly related to the purpose of the
study. Note: This assignment may be submitted, at a minimum of 7 days in advance of the scheduled
due date, for instructor feedback.
7.
Final Generalization Examination 100
Students will take a final examination over the information presented in EDSP 669. This 25 item
multiple-choice exam will assess student’s ability to respond in the presence of novel instruction
contexts. In essence, students must apply what they have learned.
EDSP 669
Fall 2013
7 of 15
Course Content & Schedule
Note: The instructor reserves the right to make modifications to this schedule during the semester
Date
8/29
Topic
Behavior Analysis in Research
Introduction to Single Subject Research
Developing Research Questions
9/5
9/12
Measurement and Evaluation
9/19
Data Collection & Reliability
9/26
Displaying Data & Visual Analysis
10/3
Withdrawal- ABAB design
Reversal Designs
10/10
Multiple baseline and Multiple Probe designs
10/17
Changing Criterion and variations on the
Multiple Baseline Designs
10/24
Comparative intervention designs
Multi-treatment
10/31
Alternating treatment/Multi-element Designs
11/7
Adapted Alternating Treatments Design
Parallel Treatments Design
11/14
11/21
Presentations (Summary) for Feedback
Non-parametric Measures of Effect and
Statistics in SSD
12/5
Ethical Considerations in Research
12/12
Readings
(Please have reading done prior to class)
Heward, 2003
Gast (2010): Chapters 1-2
Gast (2010): Chapter 4
Horner et al. (2005)
Select a study that interests you and bring to class
APA Manual Chapters 3 & 4
Gast (2010): Chapters 5, 6,
Research Questions & 5 references due
Gast (2010): Ch. 7
Kuhn, Hardesty, & Sweeney, 2009
Powell, Martindale, & Kulp, 1975
Gast (2010): Ch. 8, pp. 166-171 176-197
Ch. 9 Gast (2010):
APA Manual Chapter 6
Gast (2010): Chapter 10.
Munro & Stephenson (2009)
Cihak et al., (2010)
Hanley et al., (1997)
Schmidt et al., (2009)
Introduction Due
Gast (2010): Chapter 11
Mechling, Gast, & Gustafson (2009)
Charania et al., (2010)
Kraus, Hanley, Cesana, Eisenberg, & Jarvie (2012)
Krohn, Skinner, Fuller, & Greear, (2012)
Gast (2010): Chapter 13 pp. 383-389
Deluca & Holborn (1992)
Ricciardi, Luiselli, & Camare (2006)
McDougall, Hawkins, Brady, & Jenkins (2006)
Gast (2010): Chapter 12: pp. 329-346
Wehby & Hollahan (2000)
Haring & Kennedy (1990)
Gast (2010): Chapter 12: pp.346-357
Iwata et al., (1994)
Cox et al. (2009)
Wilder et al. (2006)
Mann, Bushell, & Morris (2010)
Gast (2010): Chapter 12: pp. 358-367; 367-381
Schlosser et al, (1998)
Preis, (2006)
Schuster et al., 1992
Leaf, Sheldon, & Sherman 2010
Gast (2010): Chapter 14
Gast (2010): Chapter 3
Final Proposal Due
Final Exam
EDSP 669
Fall 2013
8 of 15
8:10
Hallmark Assessment and Rubric
Research Proposal using Single Subject Research Methodology
The research proposal must use single subject research methods. The product should include: an introduction
(review of literature and rational for the study, purpose statement and research question(s), concluding portion of
the introduction); complete and detailed method section; a proposal of data to be analyzed, and a reference list.
Standards
Introduction
CEC 4
KTS 1, 10
Research
Question(s)
CEC 4, 8
KTS 2
Methods
CEC 8
KTS 2
Data Analysis
CEC 8
KTS 5, 7
Conclusion/
Discussions
KTS 7, 10
Exceeds Standards
Meets Standards
Target
Literature review is thorough
and current; review supports the
need for future research in the
identified area
Acceptable
Literature review is thorough,
most references are current
and it supports the need for
future research in the
identified area
Research question(s) are
stated appropriately and are
supported by previous
research and may
extend/contribute to research
in the field of special
education
Evidence supports the
selection of this single subject
design over other designs. A
description regarding
participant selection, setting,
materials, equipment, data
collection, procedures
including baseline,
independent and dependent
variable, and reliability is
presented. Method is
appropriate for the research
question.
Narrative description of how
data will be reported.
Hypothetical data is presented
in tables or graphs. Limited
visual analysis of
hypothetical data is shown on
graphs.
Research question(s) are clearly
stated, supported by and extend
the previous research, and
contribute to research in the
field of special education
Clear and logical evidence
supports the selection of this
single subject design over other
designs. Very detailed
description regarding
participant selection, setting,
materials, equipment, data
collection, procedures including
baseline, independent and
dependent variable, and
reliability are presented. Very
appropriate match between
method and research question.
Detailed narrative description
of how data will be reported.
Hypothetical data are presented
in tables and graphs. Thorough
visual analysis of hypothetical
data is shown on graphs.
Summary and conclusion is
detailed, consistent with data
reported, and includes what the
Summary and conclusion is
adequate, does not contradict
data reported, and includes
Little Evidence of Meeting
Standards
Unacceptable
Literature review is not
thorough, many references are
not current, and/or it does not
articulate the case for further
research in the identified area
Research question(s) are not
stated or are not clear. The
questions are not supported by
previous research and do not
extend/contribute to research
in the field of special
education
Evidence does not support the
selection of this single subject
design over other designs. A
description regarding
participant selection, setting,
materials, equipment, data
collection, procedures
including baseline,
independent and dependent
variable, and reliability is not
presented, incomplete, or
inappropriate for the research
question.
Narrative description of how
data will be reported is
inadequate or not described.
Hypothetical data is not
presented in tables or graphs
or is incomplete. Visual
analysis of hypothetical data is
not shown on graphs.
Summary and conclusion lack
detail, contradicts data
reported, and/or does not
EDSP 669
Fall 2013
9 of 15
Style/Format
KTS 10
researcher hopes to find out as a
result of the study. Includes
detailed explanation of future
research/teaching implications.
what the researcher hopes to
find out as a result of the
study. Includes some future
research/teaching
implications.
Proposal is written in APA style
and has no errors in
grammar/spelling. The writing
is clear, easily understood, and
organized appropriately.
Proposal is written in APA
style with minimal errors in
grammar/spelling. The
writing is understandable and
organized.
include what the researcher
hopes to find out as a result of
the study. Does not include
future research/ teaching
implications, or implications
are not logical.
Proposal is not or
inconsistently written in APA
style and/or has multiple
grammar/spelling errors. The
writing is confusing at times
and/ or not well organized.
Bibliography/References
Barlow, D. H., & Hayes, S. C. (1979). Alternating treatments design: One strategy for comparing the
effects of two treatments in a single subject. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 199-210.
Carnine, D. (1976). Effects of two teacher-presentation rates on off-task behavior answering correctly,
and participation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9, 199-206.
Charania, S. M., LeBlanc, L. A., Sabanathan, N., Ktaech, I. A., Carr, J. E., & Gunby, K. (2010).
Teaching effective hand raising to children with autism during group instruction. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 493-497.
Cihak, D., Fahrenkrog, C., Ayers, K. M., & Smith, C. (2010). The use of video modeling via a video
ipod and a system of least prompts to improve transitional behaviors for students with autism
spectrum disorders in the general education classroom. Focus on Autism and Other
Developmental Disabilities, 12, 103-115.
Cox, A. L., Gast, D. L., Luscre, D., & Ayres, K. M. (2009). The effects of weighted vests on
appropriate in-seat behaviors of elementary-age students with autism and severe to profound
intellectual disabilities. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 24,17-26.
Gast, D. L., & Wolery, M. (1988). Parallel treatments design: A nested single subject design for
comparing instructional procedures. Education and Treatment of Children, 11, 270-285.
EDSP 669
Fall 2013
10 of 15
Gresham, F., MacMillan, D. L., Beebe-Frankenberger, M. E., & Bocian, K. M. (2000). Treatment
Integrity in Learning Disabilities Intervention Research: Do we really know how treatments are
implemented? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 198-205.
Hanley, G. P., Piazza, C. C., Fischer, W. W. , & Maglieri, K. A. (2005). On the effectiveness of and
preference for punishment and extinction components of function-based interventions. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 38, 51-65.
Hanley, G. P., Piazza, C. C., Fischer, W. W., Contrucci, S. A., & Maglieri, K. A. (1997). Evaluation of
client preferences for function-based treatment packages. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
30, 459-473.
Haring, T. G., & Kennedy, C. H. (1990). Contextual control of problem behavior in students with
severe disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 235-243.
Hartmann, D. P., & Hall, R. V. (1976). The changing criterion design. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 9, 527-532.
Heward, B. (2003). Ten Faulty Notions about Teaching and Learning that Hinders the Effectiveness
about Special Education. The Journal of Special Education, 36(4). 186-205.
Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005.) The use of singlesubject research to identify evidence-based practices in special education. Exceptional Children,
71, 165-179.
Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. ( 1994). Toward a
functional analysis of self-injury. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 197-209.
Leaf, J. B., Sheldon, J. B., & Sherman, J. A. (2010). Comparison of simultaneous prompting and no-no
prompting in two choice discrimination learning with children with autism. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 43, 215-228.
EDSP 669
Fall 2013
11 of 15
Mann, T. B., Bushell, D., & Morris, E. K. (2010). Use of sounding out to improve spelling in young
children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 89-93.
Mechling, L. C., Gast, D. L., & Gustafson, M. R. (2009). Use of video modeling to teach extinguishing
of cooking related fires to individuals with moderate intellectual disabilities. Education and
Training in Developmental Disabilities, 44, 67-79.
Munro, D. W. & Stephenson J. (2009). The effects of response cards on student and teacher behavior
during vocabulary instruction. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 795-800.
Preis, J., (2006). The effect of picture communication symbols on the verbal comprehension of
commands by young children with autism. Focus on Autism and other Developmental
Disabilities, 21, 27-37.
Ramsey, M. L., Jolivette, K., Patterson, D. P., & Kennedy, C. (2010). Using choice to increase time ontask, task completion, and accuracy for students with emotional/behavior disorders. Education
and Treatment of Children, 33, 1-21.
Ricciardi, J. N., Luiseelli, J. K., & Camare, M. (2006). Shaping approach responses as intervention for
specific phobia in a child with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39. 445- 448.
Schlosser, R. W., Blischak, D. M., Belfiore, P. J., Bartley, C., & Barnett, N. (1998). Effects of synthetic
speech output and orthographic feedback on spelling in a student with autism: A preliminary
study. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 28, 309-319.
Schrand, J. A., Townsend, D. B., & Poulson, C. L. (2009). Teaching empathy skills to children with
autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 17-32.
Schmidt, A. C., Hanley, G. P., & Layer, S. (2009). A further analysis of the value of choice:
Controlling for illusionary discriminative stimuli and evaluating the effects of less preferred
items. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 711-716.
EDSP 669
Fall 2013
12 of 15
Schuster, J. W., Griffen, A. K., & Wolery, M. (1992). Comparison of Simultaneous prompting and
constant time delay procedures in teaching sight words to elementary students with moderate
mental retardation. Journal of Behavioral Education, 2, 305-325.
Sindelar, P. T. (1985). An adapted alternating treatments design for instructional research. Education
and Treatment of Children, 8, 67-76.
Tarbox, R. S. F., Williams, W. L., & Friman, P. C. (2004). Extended diaper wearing: Effects on
continence in and out of the diaper. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 37, 97-100.
Valleley, R. J., Shriver, M. D., Rozema, S. (2005). Using a brief experimental assessment of reading
interventions for identification and treatment of a vocal habit. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 38, 129-133.
Wehby, J. H., & Hollahan, M. S. (2000). Effects of high-probability requests on the latency to initiate
academic tasks. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 259-262.
Wilder, D. A., Atwell, J., & Wine, B. (2006). The effecs of varying levels of treatment integrity on child
compliance during treatment with a three-step prompting procedure. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 39, 369-373.
Wolery, M., Busick, M. , Reichow, B., & Barton, E. E. (2010). Comparison of overlap methods for
quantitatively synthesizing single-subject data. The Journal of Special Education, 44, 18-28.
Wolfe, M. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior
analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 203-214.
EDS 669 - Research Proposal - Evaluation Form
(Students may or may not use all of the headings)
Author:
EDSP 669
Fall 2013
13 of 15
Evaluation Scale Reviewer:
Date:
Available Points
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Uses 10 references
5
(from peer-reviewed journals)
5
1.2 Literature Review
1.2.1 Clear introduction of the topic
5
Points Assigned
1.2.2
Clearly links reviewed articles to
5
research questions
1.3 Builds a Rationale for Research
1.3.1 Rationale is clearly expressed
2
1.3.2 Rationale is supported by empirical evidence 3
1.4 Purpose & Research Question(s)
5
1.5 Style and format
1.5.1 APA style
5
1.5.2 Clarity of Writing
5
Total
2.0 Methods
2.1 Subjects
2.2 Setting
2.3 Materials/Equipment
2.4 Data Collection
2.4.1 Defines Dependent variables
2.5.2. Select Appropriate Measurement System
2.5 Thorough Description of Baseline Conditions
2.5.1 Example of Data Collection Forms
2.6 Thorough description of Independent Variable
2.6.1 Application is conceptually systematic
2.6.2 Assesses/or describes procedures
to promote generalization
2.6.3 Description of other procedures
2.7 Experimental Design
2.8 Design Supports Research Question(s)
2.9 Threats to internal validity
2.8.1 Addresses threats
2.8.2 Demonstrates understanding of threats
2.10 Reliability
2.9.1 Dependent Variable
2.9.2 Independent Variable
2.11 Social Validity
2.11.1 Includes tool
3.0 Data Analysis
3.1 Narrative Description
3.3 Visual Analysis Hypothetical
3.3.1. Graphing Conventions
3.3.2 Functional Relation is Clear
4.0 Conclusions/Discussion
4.1 Summary/Conclusions
/40
2
2
2
2
1
3
2
5
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
3
2
2
1
EDSP 669
Fall 2013
14 of 15
4.2 Implications for Future
Research/Teaching
1
5.0 Style/Format
5.1 APA Style
5.2 Mechanics/Clarity of Writing
5.4 Replicable/Technological
Total Points (Overall Rating)
Comments/Recommendations
4
5
5
/60
EDSP 669
Fall 2013
15 of 15