1. Social Validity and Treatment Integrity
Also, finishing up single subject research

2. Baseline Terminology and Comprehension
What is it?
Why is it important?
What do we need to know?
Baseline
Predictive Function
Trend
Decreasing Baseline
Increasing Baseline
How do I compute baseline stability and what is it?

3. Explain the Design AB Design & Changing Criteria Reversal Design
Alternating Treatments Design
Multiple Baseline
Define/Purpose
Limitations and Strengths
Graph and explain an example use based on a hypothetical experiment

4. Single Subject Research: Assessment
Observable Behavior Only
Typically does not Use indirect measures
Identified a target behavior
Considers all observable human activities a “behavior”
Internal thoughts feelings exist, but you can not observe them.

5. Observable Events
Antecedent (Stimulus) Events- events that happen or precede target behaviors
Consequence Events-events that happen after target behaviors
The antecedent events of hanging out a the pub this week seems to have affected the consequence event of a D on the test!

6. Decision Tree for Data Systems
Academic or Social Behavior
Related to numerical dimension
Related to time dimension
Prior to
Response
Time between initiation response and end of behavior
Discrete
Discrete or Continuous
Event Recording
Moderate frequency
High Frequency
Latency Recording
Duration
Recording
Interval Recording
Time Sampling

7. Interval/Time Sample Observations
One good way to record behaviors in a time sample is to have a pre-set key where you mark or circle the behavior.
Coded Symbols are good way to mark operational observable behaviors
Pre-recorded signals that are precisely timed is one common method of using
Interval observations

8. Duration &Latency Forms
Duration recording forms record the length of time from when a student starts a behavior
On the other hand, Latency is recorded from when you give a cue or instruction, and you are recording the time until a student starts a behavior. This duration form includes other important information to be coded.

9. Whole vs. Partial
Interval recording is may not be practical for the teacher, but is desirable for experimental conditions- you may have to strike a balance
However, a whole or partial time sample may work
A whole is where the behavior occurs throughout the interval- probably not workable for most situations
A partial time sample if a behavior occurs during the interval of the sample
All time samples have limited accuracy
In time sampling you could miss low frequency behaviors

10. Find the Social Validity Concepts. How are they related?
Pre-intervention
Post-intervention
Why do we assess
Whom do We assess

11. “The degree to which an intervention is implemented as planned”
Treatment fidelity
Intervention fidelity
Treatment Integrity
“The degree to which an intervention is implemented as planned”
Procedural fidelity
Treatment plan implementation
Intervention integrity
Hagermoser Sanetti, 2008

12. Why care about treatment integrity (Hagermoser Sanetti, 2008)?
1. Referral/ assessment data suggest intervention is warranted
2. Evidence-based intervention selected & implemented
3. Student outcomes (SO) assessed
3. Treatment integrity (TI) assessed
Data reviewed
5a. Continue intervention
+ SO
+ TI
Impacts the evaluation of services we provide to any and every student.
Impacts the internal validity of experimental studies—if we want to know if X treatment caused Y effect, we have to know, not assume, that treatment X was in fact implemented.
As the field moves to an RTI framework in which all students are provided with a high quality, empirically supported instruction and behavioral supports and their progress is monitored. In an RTI model, student’s reponse to the provision of EBIs is the primary factor thtat determines the level of intervention required—to make vaid decisions about a student’s need for additoinal services, practitioners will need to assess TI.
The decision of providing more intervention to a student with small-group or individualized interventions could be crtical to the academic and potentially earning potential of a student—Danielson,
4. Data-based decisions
5b. Implement strategies to promote treatment integrity
- SO - TI
- SO
+ TI
5c. Change intervention

13. Framework for assessing treatment integrity (Power et al., 2005)
Hypothesized dimensions of treatment integrity; Hagermoser Sanetti, 2008
Framework for assessing treatment integrity (Power et al., 2005)
How much of the intervention was implemented?
How well was the intervention implemented?
Adherence
Extent to which specific program components delivered as planned
Exposure
Index of the number, length, frequency, of sessions,
Program differentiation
A manipulation check performed to safeguard against diffusion of treatments
Power and colleagues (2005) combined the dimensions of treatment integrity proposed by Dane and Schneider (1998) with treatment integrity assessment guidelines proposed by Gresham (1989) into a framework for treatment integrity assessment. The framework suggests that two estimates of integrity and five dimensions of integrity should be considered in a thorough assessment of treatment integrity. The two estimates of integrity are component integrity (i.e., an average rating for a specific intervention component) and daily integrity (i.e., an average rating for all intervention components combined). Power et al. conceptualized each dimension as being either content or process related. According to this conceptualization, adherence, exposure, and program differentiation, address the content of the intervention and answer the question “How much of the intervention was implemented?” The remaining two dimensions of treatment integrity, quality of delivery and participant responsiveness, address the process of implementing the intervention and answer the question “How well was the intervention implemented?” Power and colleagues suggest that to execute a thorough assessment of treatment integrity that includes both estimates of and all of the dimensions of treatment integrity, it is essential to use a partnership model in which the responsibility for planning and executing treatment integrity assessment is shared by researchers and interventionists. This framework for assessing treatment integrity is the most comprehensive proposed to date. With regard to the estimates of integrity within the BC literature reviewed above, researchers who have provided quantitative data in their reports have focused solely on daily integrity. However, for many interventions, some intervention components are conceptualized as being essential for behavior change while implementation of other components is ideal but not essential (Waltz, Addis, Koerner, & Jacobson, 1993). Thus, assessing and reporting component integrity will allow data-based (as opposed to theory-driven) determinations as to which components of an intervention are truly essential to positive treatment outcomes. As mentioned above, research regarding the dimensions of treatment integrity is just emerging and additional studies are needed to confirm this conceptualization.
Quality of delivery
Qualitative aspects of the intervention—
enthusiasm, effectiveness, preparedness
Participant responsiveness
The degree to which intervention participants were engaged in the program
Daily estimate: average rating for all intervention components
Component estimate: average rating for individual components

14. Quick Critical Analysis: Single Subject Study
What are the questions and Purpose of my article?
What kind of measurement approach/ instrumentation did they use?
Did the establish reliability and how?
What did they do establish validity of instruments?
What was the design and what did they do to insure it was valid? Did they consider social validity or treatment acceptability?
What were the findings and was the discussion consistent with the findings?
What did the authors list as limitations?
Do you think study is replicable and/ or generalizeable?