Applications of a Sequential Alternating Treatments Design

Abstract

We propose the use of a combined version of the alternating treatments and multiple baseline designs in situations in which a traditional baseline (no treatment) condition either does not provide an adequate contrast condition or is not feasible or practical due to clinical constraints. We refer to this design as a sequential alternating treatments design because two treatments are initially implemented in a random or counterbalanced fashion and are followed by a sequential change in one or both treatments across settings, subjects, or tasks. The effects of the independent variables are assessed first by analyzing the two series of data points representing the different treatments (relative effects) and then by assessing changes in one or both series, as application of the alternative treatment is introduced sequentially. The sequential application of treatment provides an analysis of control in the same manner as the multiple baseline design; the initial alternating treatments phase provides a contrast condition in much the same manner as a baseline condition. Applications of this design to the assessment of peer training and self-injurious behavior are described.

An Evaluation of Generalization of Mands During Functional Communication Training

“…behavioral literature (Tiger, Hanley, & Bruzek, 2008) and is based on development of targeted mand repertoires among individuals who exhibit destructive behavior. Specifically, FCT involves (a) identification of the reinforcer that maintains destructive behavior via a functional assessment (e.g., functional analysis; Carr & Durand, 1985;Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, & Richman, 1982/1994Northup et al, 1991), (b) delivery of the same reinforcer contingent on an appropriate communicative response or mand (Carr & Durand, 1985), (c) placement of destructive behavior on extinction (Fisher et al, 1993;Hagopian, Fisher, Sullivan, Acquisto, & LeBlanc, 1998), and (d) in some cases provision of punishment for destructive behavior (Hagopian et al, 1998;Wacker et al, 1990).…”

Brief report: An extension of the sequential alternating treatment design using reversals with subjects not available concurrently

“…Recently, Wacker et al (1990) described what they call the sequential alternating treatments design to compare two treatments. The design involves three phases with each subject.…”

“…Often, a no-treatment baseline is not possible due to clinical considerations or other ethical or pragmatic concerns, and the design proposed by Wacker et al (1990) allows comparison of the two treatments without a baseline. A baseline period might be contraindicated, for instance, in studying or treating dangerous or life-threatening behaviors.…”

“…With a problem such as food refusal, even the delay required by a baseline period might endanger a clienthbject. The Wacker et al (1990) design allows both experimental evaluation and clinical assessment of treatment alternatives in such cases.…”

“…In many situations, reversal designs requiring a return to a "no-treatment'' baseline may not actually be possible if treatment effects are maintained by other contingencies or when treatment effects are successfully maintained (Wacker et al, 1990;Thompson, Palmer, & Linscheid, 1977). Wacker et al also pointed out that baseline is often poorly controlled and may include events that interact with treatment conditions in unknown ways.…”