Behavioral interventions to decrease problem behavior often involve the use of single-case experimental designs in which an individual’s responding during a treatment condition is compared to responding during a control or baseline condition. It is possible that during the initial introduction of treatment, problem behavior continues to occur at baseline rates before behavior reduction is observed; this phenomenon is called a transition state. Evaluated the prevalence of transition states in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis and found that they occurred within 5.3% of the published literature. The current study replicated and extended Brogan et al. by evaluating the prevalence of transition states in unpublished clinical data of patients admitted to an inpatient hospital for the treatment of severe problem behavior. Using a retrospective consecutive-controlled case series, transition states were observed in 3% of cases for an average duration of 4.8 sessions. We discuss factors that may affect transitional behavior between phases and relevant implications for practice and research.
BaerD. M. (1977). Perhaps it would be better not to know everything. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 167–172. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1977.10-167
2.
Barnard-BrakL.RichmanD. M.LittleT. D.YangZ. (2018). Development of an in-vivo metric to aid visual inspection of single-case design data: Do we need to run more sessions?Behaviour Research and Therapy, 102, 8–15.
3.
BroganK. M.RappJ. T.SturdivantB. R. (2019). Transition states in single case experimental designs. Behavior Modification. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445519839213
4.
BrossartD. F.ParkerR. I.OlsonE. A.MahadevanL. (2006). The relationship between visual analysis and five statistical analyses in a simple AB single-case research design. Behavior Modification, 30, 531–563.
5.
CoxD. J.BrodheadM. T. (2021). A proof of concept analysis of decision-making with time-series data. The Psychological Record, 71, 349–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-020-00451-w
6.
FalligantJ. M.KranakM. P.HagopianL. P. (2022). Further analysis of advanced quantitative methods and supplemental interpretative aids with single-case experimental designs. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 45, 77–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-021-00313-y
7.
FalligantJ. M.KranakM. P.SchmidtJ. D.RookerG. W. (2020). Correspondence between fail-safe k and dual-criteria methods: Analysis of data series stability. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 43, 303–319. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-020-00255-x
8.
FalligantJ. M.McNultyM. K.HausmanN. L.RookerG. W. (2020). Using dual-criteria methods to supplement visual inspection: Replication and extension. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 53, 1789–1798. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.665
9.
FalligantJ. M.McNultyM. K.KranakM. P.HausmanN. L.RookerG. W. (2020). Evaluating sources of baseline data using dual-criteria and conservative dual-criteria methods: A quantitative analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 53, 2330–2338. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.710
10.
FischG. S. (2001). Evaluating data from behavioral analysis: Visual inspection or statistical models?Behavioural Processes, 54(1–3), 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0376-6357(01)00155-3
11.
FisherW. W.KelleyM. E.LomasJ. E. (2003). Visual aids and structured criteria for improving visual inspection and interpretation of single-case designs. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 387–406. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2003.36-387
12.
FisherW. W.LermanD. C. (2014). It has been said that, “There are three degrees of falsehoods: Lies, damn lies, and statistics.”Journal of School Psychology, 52(2), 243–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.01.001
13.
GageN. A.LewisT. J. (2014). Hierarchical linear modeling meta-analysis of single-subject design research. Journal for Special Educators, 48, 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466912443894
14.
HagopianL. P. (2020). The consecutive controlled case series: Design, data-analytics, and reporting methods supporting the study of generality. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 53, 596–619. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.691
15.
HagopianL. P.FisherW. W.ThompsonR. H.Owen-DeSchryverJ.IwataB. A.WackerD. P. (1997). Toward the development of structured criteria for interpretation of functional analysis data. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 313–326. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1997.30-313
16.
HagopianL. P.KurtzP. F.BowmanL. G.O’ConnorJ. T.CataldoM. F. (2022). A neurobehavioral continuum of care for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities with severe problem behavior. Children’s Health Care. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/02739615.2021.1987237
17.
HallS. S.PollardJ. S.MonluxK. D.BakerJ. M. (2020). Interpreting functional analysis outcomes using automated nonparametric statistical analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 53(2), 1177–1191. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.689
18.
HarringtonM.VelicerW. F. (2015). Comparing visual and statistical analysis in single-case studies using published studies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50, 162–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2014.973989
19.
KazdinA. E. (2010). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
20.
LanovazM. J.CardinalP.FrancisM. (2019). Using a visual structured criterion for the analysis of alternating-treatment designs. Behavior Modification, 43, 115–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445517739278
21.
LanovazM. J.GiannakakosA. R.DestrasO. (2020). Machine learning to analyze single-case data: A proof of concept. Perspectives on Behavior Science. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/1.1007/s40614-020-00244-0
22.
NinciJ.VannestK. J.WillsonV.ZhangN. (2015). Interrater agreement between visual analysts of single-case data: A meta-analysis. Behavior Modification, 39, 510–541. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445515581327
23.
RoaneH. S.FisherW. W.KelleyM. E.MeversJ. L.BouxseinK. J. (2013). Using modified visual-inspection criteria to interpret functional analysis outcomes. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 130–146. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.13
24.
ShamE.SmithT. (2014). Publication bias in studies of an applied behavior-analytic intervention: An initial analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47, 663–678. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.146
25.
SmithJ. D. (2012). Single-case experimental designs: A systematic review of published research and current standards. Psychological Methods, 17, 510–550. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029312
26.
ThompsonR. H.IwataB. A.HanleyG. P.DozierC. L.SamahaA. L. (2003). The effects of extinction, noncontingent reinforcement, and differential reinforcement of other behavior as control procedures. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 221–238. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2003.36-221
27.
WolfeK.SeamanM. A.DrasgowE.SherlockP. (2018). An evaluation of the agreement between the conservative dual-criterion method and expert visual analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 51, 345–351. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.453
