BA420 Unit 10 Single-Case Evaluation Plan Example

Measuring Whether Choice Helps Destiny Start Her Work: A BA420 Unit 10 Single-Case Evaluation Plan

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

BA420: Methods of Behavior Analysis

Unit 10 Single-Case Evaluation Plan

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The writer, the school, the student and every figure are composite and illustrative; the articles and book cited are real.

The Student and the Question

Destiny, an eighth grader, joined my caseload in March. Her teachers report that during independent work in math, science and English, she often sits without starting for long stretches, sometimes for the whole work period, and becomes upset when prompted repeatedly. An interview with Destiny and her teachers suggested that being told which problem to do first, especially when it looked hard, was part of the trigger. The district behavior analyst proposed a simple intervention: let Destiny choose the order in which she completes the assigned problems. This plan describes how the team will measure and evaluate it.

Definitions

Task initiation: Destiny writes or types the first mark of a response to any assigned item, such as a number, word or diagram, within the independent work period. Non-examples: writing her name or the date, copying the problem without beginning to answer, or doodling.

Items completed: the number of assigned items with a complete response, whether correct or not, at the end of the independent work period, divided by the number assigned.

Both definitions were tested on two recorded work periods by two observers, who agreed on the time of initiation within ten seconds and on the count of completed items in both periods.

Measurement

Latency to task initiation, the time from the teacher's instruction to begin to Destiny's first response mark, will be recorded with a timer on a tablet. Percentage of items completed will be scored from her work at the end of each period. Latency captures the starting problem; completion captures whether starting leads to finishing. Data will be collected in every independent work period in the three classes, about four times a week per class.

Interobserver Agreement

A second observer, the special education teacher or the district analyst, will independently record latency and score completion in at least one third of sessions in each phase and each class. Latency agreement will be calculated as the shorter latency divided by the longer, averaged across sessions; completion agreement will be item by item. The target is 85 percent or higher. If agreement falls below that for two consecutive checks, observers will review the definitions with recorded examples before continuing.

Every number in the plan is useful only if two people would have written down the same number.

Design

A multiple baseline across settings will be used, with math, science and English as tiers. Kazdin (2011) notes that multiple baselines across settings demonstrate control when behavior changes in each setting only after the intervention begins there. Choice of task order is not expected to be withdrawn, since the team hopes Destiny will keep the strategy, which makes a multiple baseline more appropriate than a withdrawal.

Baseline will begin in all three classes during the same week. Choice will begin in math first. Decision rules, set now: the intervention will move to the next class when Destiny's latency in the current treated class has changed clearly over three sessions in a row and the next class's baseline has at least five data points without a trend toward improvement.

Treatment Fidelity

Each teacher will use a short checklist during choice sessions: offer the choice before giving the start instruction, accept any order Destiny chooses, give no more than one prompt in the first five minutes and praise her when she begins. I will observe one session per week per class and record whether each step occurred. Fidelity below 80 percent will trigger a brief meeting with the teacher.

Analysis

Data will be graphed for each class on a shared time axis, with phase lines marked. The team will apply a systematic visual analysis protocol, examining level, trend, variability, immediacy, overlap and consistency within and across tiers (Wolfe et al., 2019). Three demonstrations of effect, one in each class, at different times, would support a conclusion that choice reduced latency. The standards for high-quality single-case research described by Horner et al. (2005), including clear description of the participant and setting, measurement with agreement and fidelity, will guide the final report.

Social Validity

At the end of the evaluation, Destiny, her teachers and her parent will complete a brief survey asking whether starting work faster mattered to them, whether offering choices was acceptable and practical, and whether they noticed changes outside the measured periods. Wolf (1978) argued that such judgments are essential to applied work, since a measured change matters only if it matters to the people involved.

Risks and Contingencies

Two risks could weaken the evaluation. If Destiny's latency improves in all three classes as soon as choice begins in math, perhaps because she starts using the strategy on her own, the design would not show control, though the outcome would still be good for her. The team would then report the result honestly as an AB comparison with generalization and consider a brief probe of the original instruction style in one class. If latency does not improve in math after eight sessions, the team will revisit the hypothesis that task order is the trigger before moving on.

Conclusion

This plan applies the course's tools to one student's problem: clear definitions tested before use, two measurement dimensions, scheduled agreement checks, a multiple baseline across classes with rules written in advance, fidelity monitoring, protocol-based visual analysis and social validity. If Destiny starts her work sooner in each class only after choice begins there, the team will know the intervention helped, and why.

References

Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 165-179. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100203

Kazdin, A. E. (2011). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Wolfe, K., Barton, E. E., & Meadan, H. (2019). Systematic protocols for the visual analysis of single-case research data. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 12(2), 491-502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-019-00336-7

Wolf, 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(2), 203-214. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1978.11-203