Search

Provision of small “sensory” fidget toys during group activities is a low-effort intervention that may be used during group activities to encourage attendance and engagement by children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the noncontingent provision of fidget toys during a group activity. Research activities occurred at a summer camp designed to improve social skills for young children with ASD. The impact of fidgets was compared with a baseline condition and contingent provision of tokens using a single case alternating treatments design. Results suggest contra-therapeutic effects or decreased engagement over time for the fidget condition. Practitioners should consider using evidence-based alternatives to improve engagement or should engage in careful data-based decision-making when fidgets are used with the intent to improve engagement in group activities.

The effectiveness of a weighted blanket intervention and structured work boxes for improving engagement for a child with autism during math circle time in a general education kindergarten classroom were evaluated relative to baseline using an alternating treatments design. The structured work boxes resulted in higher levels of engagement, and the weighted blanket resulted in levels that were similar to or lower than baseline. Additional research is needed on sensory-based interventions; in the meantime, teachers should use evidence-based practices.

Background Feeding problems are common for individuals with ASD. Researchers have most often used single case designs, a type of design appropriate for evaluating causal relations, to assess feeding interventions. Previous reviews of effectiveness have included only peer-reviewed studies (e.g., did not include gray literature) and have not analyzed outcomes via the presence of functional relations, the primary analysis method for single case research. Method Authors reviewed peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources including studies designed to improve mealtime behaviors for individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to determine participant characteristics, common intervention characteristics and components, and success rates (percentage of studies with functional relations). Results Studies often included individuals with ASD who were highly selective; common dependent variables were acceptance of food and problematic mealtime behaviors. Researchers, rather than indigenous adults, most often implemented studies in clinics, rather than typical settings. Interventions designed to improve acceptance had higher success rates (percentage of studies demonstrating a functional relation) than those targeting rumination/vomiting or problematic mealtime behavior. Conclusions Outcomes were more often positive for food acceptance and less often positive for problematic mealtime behavior. More research is needed, particularly in typical contexts with indigenous implementers and including component analyses, feasibility assessment, and social validity measurement. Feeding interventions should be selected based on identified caregiver priorities (e.g., focus on problematic mealtime behavior or food acceptance) and should include consideration of behavioral function and less restrictive interventions.

Tools for evaluating the quality and rigor of single case research designs (SCD) are often used when conducting SCD syntheses. Preferred components include evaluations of design features related to the internal validity of SCD to obtain quality and/or rigor ratings. Three tools for evaluating the quality and rigor of SCD (Council for Exceptional Children, What Works Clearinghouse, and Single-Case Analysis and Design Framework) were compared to determine if conclusions regarding the effectiveness of antecedent sensory-based interventions for young children changed based on choice of quality evaluation tool. Evaluation of SCD quality differed across tools, suggesting selection of quality evaluation tools impacts evaluation findings. Suggestions for selecting an appropriate quality and rigor assessment tool are provided and across-tool conclusions are drawn regarding the quality and rigor of studies. Finally, authors provide guidance for using quality evaluations in conjunction with outcome analyses when conducting syntheses of interventions evaluated in the context of SCD.

Withdrawal and multitreatment single subject research designs were used to evaluate the effectiveness of stay-play-talk (SPT) interventions on social behaviors of preschool-aged peers to children with disabilities. Each group included at least one socially competent peer and one child with Down syndrome who used an augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) device as a primary mode of communication. Peers were trained to use SPT strategies during free play sessions, and a modified reinforcement system and modified peer arrangement were introduced for one group. For one group, results indicate a functional relation between the original SPT intervention and increased stay and play behaviors. For the other group, results indicate a functional relation between SPT with modified arrangement and increased stay and play behaviors. Future research is needed to determine effectiveness of SPT interventions for children with disabilities who have more sophisticated functional play skills, as well as utility of creating peer dyads compared with peer triads.

Single case designs (SCDs) allow researchers to objectively evaluate the impact of an intervention by repeatedly measuring a dependent variable across baseline and intervention conditions. Rooted in baseline logic, SCDs evaluate change over time, with each participant serving as his or her own control during the course of a study. Formative and summative evaluation of data is critical to determining causal relations. Visual analysis involves evaluation of level, trend, variability, consistency, overlap, and immediacy of effects within (baseline and intervention) and between conditions (baseline to intervention). The purpose of this paper is to highlight the process for visually analysing data collected in the context of a SCD and to provide structures and procedures for evaluating the six data characteristics of interest. A checklist with dichotomous responses (i.e., yes/no) is presented to facilitate implementation and reporting of systematic visual analysis.

The overarching purpose of this article is to provide an introduction to the use of rigorous single-case research designs (SCRDs) in special education and related fields. Authors first discuss basic design types and research questions that can be answered with SCRDs, examine threats to internal validity and potential ways to control for and detect common threats, and provide guidelines for selection of specific designs. Following, contemporary standards regarding rigor, measurement, description, and outcomes are presented. Then, authors discuss data analytic techniques, differentiating rigor, positive outcomes, functional relations, and magnitude of effects.

Interventions designed to decrease problem behavior for students with ASD are critical and may be differentially important for students from minority groups as those students tend to be assigned more negative outcomes related to problem behavior (e.g., suspensions). School-based interventions intended to decrease problem behavior for individuals with ASD were reviewed; 46 articles including 84 single case designs and 87 participants were analyzed regarding participant demographics, settings and implementers, intervention components, and study characteristics. We assessed outcomes for 55 demonstration designs with adequate rigor. Most research was conducted with students in segregated settings and, although race and ethnicity were rarely reported, proportions were different from other reviews in that children from some minority groups were overrepresented.

This chapter describes those single case designs (SCDs) commonly referred to as “withdrawal” or “reversal” designs—one of the earliest and simplest SCDs, they involve repeating the basic baseline (A) and intervention (B) comparison by introducing and withdrawing the intervention with one or more participants. It discusses withdrawal designs' use by applied researchers investigating the effectiveness of a wide range of interventions in educational and clinical settings. The chapter also describes A-B and A-B-A designs but focuses primarily on the A-B-A-B design given its experimental utility. The A-B-A design is more useful than the basic A-B design from an experimental perspective. The A-B-A-B design provides a convincing demonstration of causality in applied research. Experimental control is demonstrated in the A-B-A-B design when the level and trend of a target behavior improves under intervention conditions and deteriorates under subsequent baseline conditions. Each replication of effect strengthens the internal validity of results.