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