Single-subject research has provided an important technological base for the education and management of various handicapping conditions. To improve and extend the quality of services to the handicapped, practitioners in special education need to understand and interpret such research. Several considerations for evaluating single-subject research include the social validation of treatment goals and effects, the clarity and completeness of treatment descriptions, the generality of treatment results, and component analyses of treatment packages. The importance and evaluation of each of these considerations is discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AzrinN. H., & ArmstrongP. M.The “mini-meal”—A method for teaching eating skills to the profoundly retarded.Mental Retardation, 1973, 11, 9–13.
BaerD. M., WolfM. M., & RisleyT. R.Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1968, 1, 91–97.
4.
BanduraA.Principles of behavior modification.New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston,1969.
5.
BarrishH. H., SaundersM., & WolfM. M.Good behavior game: Effects of individual contingencies for group consequences of disruptive behavior in a classroom.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1969, 2, 119–124.
6.
CullinanD., EpsteinM. H., & KauffmanJ. M.The behavioral model and children's behavior disorders: Foundations and evaluations. In McDowellR., AdamsonG., & WoodF. (Eds.), Teaching emotionally disturbed children.Boston: Little, Brown,1982.
7.
DrabmanR. S., HammerD., & RosenbaumM. S.Assessing generalization in behavior modification with children: The generalization map.Behavioral Assessment.1979, 203–219.
8.
EpsteinM. H., & CullinanD.Social validation: Use of normative peer data to evaluate interventions for children with learning disabilities.Learning Disability Quarterly, 1979, 2, 93–98.
9.
HarrisV. W., & ShermanJ. A.Use and analysis of the “good behavior game” to reduce disruptive classroom behavior.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1973, 6, 405–417.
10.
HomerA. L., & PetersonL.Differential reinforcement of other behavior: A preferred response elimination procedure.Behavior Therapy, 1980, 11, 449–471.
11.
KazdinA. E.Assessing the clinical or applied significance of behavior change through social validation.Behavior Modification, 1977, 1, 427–452.
12.
KazdinA. E.Single-case research designs.New York: Oxford University Press,1982.
13.
MarholinD., SiegelL. J., & PhillipsD.Treatment and transfer: A search for empirical procedures. In HersenM., EislerR. M., & MillerP. M. (Eds.), Progress in behavior modification (Vol. 3). New York: Academic Press, 1976.
14.
NelsonG. L., & ConeJ. D.Multiple-baseline analysis of a token economy for psychiatric inpatients.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1979, 12, 255–271.
15.
NutterD., & ReidD. H.Teaching retarded women a clothing selection skill using community norms.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1978, 11, 475–487.
16.
PattersonG. R.Interventions for boys with conduct problems: Multiple settings, treatments, and criteria.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1974, 42, 471–481.
17.
PetersonL., HomerA. L., & WonderlichS. A.The integrity of independent variables in behavior analysis.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1982, 15, 477–492.
18.
StokesT., & BaerD.An implicit technology of generalization.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1977, 10, 349–367.
19.
Sulzer-AzaroffB., & MayerG. R.Applying behavior-analysis procedures with children and youth.New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston,1977.
20.
van den PolR. A., IwataB. A., IvancicM. T., PageT. J., NeefN. H., & WhitleyF. P.Teaching the handicapped to eat in public places: Acquisition, generalization and maintenance of restaurant skills.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1981, 14, 61–69.
21.
WalkerH. M., & HopsH.The use of group and individual reinforcement contingencies in the modification of social withdrawal. In HamerlynckL. A., HandyL. C., & MashE. J. (Eds.), Behavior change: Methodology, concepts and practice.Champaign, IL: Research Press,1973.
22.
WalkerH. M., & HopsH.Use of normative peer data as a standard for evaluating classroom treatment effects.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1976, 9, 159–168.
23.
WalkerH. M., HopsH., & JohnsonS. M.Generalization and maintenance of classroom treatment effects.Behavior Therapy, 1975, 6, 188–200.
24.
WalkerH. M., MattsonR. H., & BuckleyN. K.The functional analysis of behavior within an experimental class setting. In BeckerW. C. (Ed.), An empirical basis for change in education.Chicago: Science Research Associates,1971.
25.
WolfM. M.Social validity: The case for subjective measurement, or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart.Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1978, 11, 203–214.
