This article illustrates (a) 2 recent innovations in the changing criterion research design, (b) how these innovations apply to research and practice in special education, and (c) how clinical needs influence design features of the changing criterion design. The first innovation, the range-bound changing criterion, is a very simple variation of the classic changing criterion design. The classic version uses a single criterion for each stepwise intervention phase, whereas the range-bound version uses a range criterion—that is, an upper and lower limit for each intervention phase. The second innovation, the distributed criterion, combines elements of the changing criterion, multiple-baseline, and ABAB designs. It is well suited to contexts where students must multitask—that is, allocate, prioritize, and adjust time and effort to complete multiple tasks in response to changing environmental demands. These two innovations expand options available to researchers who use single-case research designs to investigate questions of interest in special education.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alberto, P.A., & Troutman, A.C. (1999). Applied behavior analysis for teachers (5th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
2.
Baer, D.M., Wolf, M.M., & Risley, T. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis . Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 91— 97.
3.
Barlow, D.H., & Hersen, M. (1984). Single-case experimental design: Strategies for studying behavior change (2nd ed.). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.
4.
Bates, P., Renzaglia, A., & Clees, T.J. (1980). Improving the work performance of severely/profoundly retarded young adults: The use of a changing criterion procedural design. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 15(2), 95—104.
5.
Boice, R. (1990). Professors as writers: A self-help guide to productive writing. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.
6.
Edinger, J.D. (1978). Modification of smoking behavior in a correctional institution. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 34(4), 991—998.
7.
Flood, W.A., & Wilder, D.A. (2004). The use of differential reinforcement and fading to increase time away from a caregiver in a child with separation anxiety disorder. Education & Treatment of Children, 27(1), 1—8.
8.
Foxx, R.M., & Rubinoff, A. (1979). Behavioral treatment of caffeinism: Reducing excessive coffee drinking. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 335—344.
9.
Glynn, E.J., Thomas, J.D., & Shee, S.M. (1973). Behavioral self-control of on-task behavior in an elementary classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis , 6, 105—113.
10.
Gorski, J.A.B., & Westbrook, A.C. (2002). Use of differential reinforcement to treat medical non-compliance in a pediatric patient with leukocyte adhesion deficiency. Pediatric Rehabilitation, 5(1), 29—35.
11.
Hall, R.V. (1971). Managing behavior: Behavior modification, the measurement of behavior. Lawrence, KS: H & H Enterprises.
12.
Hall, R.V., & Foxx, R.G. (1977). Changing criterion designs: An alternative applied behavior analysis procedure. In C. C. Etzel, G. M. LeBlanc, & D. M. Baer (Eds.), New developments in behavioral research: Theory, mind, and application (pp. 151—166). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
13.
Hartmann, D.P., & Hall, R.V. (1976). The changing criterion design. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9, 527—532.
14.
Hinerman, P.S., Jenson, W.R., Walker, G.R., & Petersen, B.P. (1982). Positive practice overcorrection combined with additional procedures to teach signed words to an autistic child . Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 12(3), 253—263.
15.
Johnston, J.M., & Pennypacker, H.S. (1993). Strategies and tactics of behavioral research (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
16.
Kahng, S., Boscoe, J.H., & Byrne, S. (2003). The use of an escape contingency and a token reinforcement economy to increase food acceptance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 349—353.
17.
Kazdin, A.E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kerlinger, F.N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral science. New York: CBS College Publishing.
20.
Kottler, J.A. (2001). Making changes. Philadelphia : Brunner-Routledge.
21.
Kratochwill, T.R. (1978). Single subject research. New York: Academic Press.
22.
Luiselli, J.K. (2000). Cueing, demand fading, and positive reinforcement to establish self-feeding and oral consumption in a child with chronic food refusal. Behavior Modification, 24(3), 348—358.
23.
McDougall, D. (1998). Research on self-management techniques used by students with disabilities in general education settings: A descriptive review . Remedial and Special Education, 19, 310—320.
24.
McDougall, D. (2005a) The impact of goal setting and behavioral self-management on daily exercise and health of an overweight, middle-age adult. Manuscript submitted for publication.
25.
McDougall, D. (2005b). The range-bound changing criterion design. Behavioral Interventions, 20, 129—137.
26.
McDougall, D. (2005c). Using goal setting and behavioral self-management to increase research productivity. Manuscript submitted for publication.
27.
McDougall, D. (in press).The distributed criterion design. Journal of Behavioral Education.
28.
McDougall, D.,Smith, G., Black, R., & rumrill, P. (2005). Recent innovations in small-N designs for rehabilitation research: An extension of Cowan, Hennessey, Vierstra, and Rumrill. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 197-205.
29.
McLaughlin, T.F. (1983). An examination and evaluation of single subject designs used in behavior analysis research in school settings. Educational Research Quarterly, 7, 35—42.
30.
Mizes, J.S. (1985). The use of contingent reinforcement in the treatment of a conversion disorder: A multiple baseline study. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 16, 341—345.
31.
Noles, K.O., Epstein, L.H., & Jones, H.T. (1976). Instructional control of sleep reduction. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 43, 669—670.
32.
Osborne, M.L., & Himadi, B. (1990). Evaluation of a shaping procedure with the changing criterion design. Behavioral Residential Treatment, 5(2), 75—81.
33.
Paniagua, F.A., Pumariega, A.J., & Black, S.A. (1988). Clinical effects of correspondence training in the management of hyperactive children. Behavioral Residential Treatment, 3(1), 19—40.
34.
Poling, A., & Fuqua, R.W. (1986). Research methods in applied behavior analysis: Issues and advances. New York: Plenum Press.
35.
Schleien, S.J., Wehman, P., & Kiernan, J. (1981). Teaching adult leisure skills to severely handicapped adults: An age-appropriate darts game. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 513—519.
36.
Schloss, P.J., Sedlak, R.A., Elliott, C., & Smothers, M. (1982). Application of the changing- criterion design in special education. The Journal of Special Education, 16, 359—367.
37.
Sidman, M. (1960). Tactics of scientific research. New York: Basic Books.
38.
Skinner, C.H., Skinner, A.L., & Armstrong, K.J. (2000). Analysis of a client—staff-developed shaping program designed to enhance reading persistence in an adult diagnosed with schizophrenia. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 24(1), 52—57.
39.
Tawney, J., & Gast, D. (1984). Single subject research in special education. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
40.
Watson, D.L., & Tharp, R.G. (2002). Self-directed behavior: Self-modification for personal development. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
41.
Weis, L., & Hall, R.V. (1971). Modification of cigarette smoking through avoidance of punishment. In R. V. Hall (Ed.), Managing behavior: Behavior modification applications in school and home (pp. 77—102). Lawrence, KS: H & H Enterprises.
