The progress of learners with disabilities is monitored in order to identify the fitting instructions as well as those that need modifications. Essentially, the standards set to provide sufficient and effective instructions within the curriculum are followed to facilitate changes in accordance with the recommendations from instructors. The reports of students’ success in meeting the course requirements are assessed by professional staff who inform about the necessarily changes essential for facilitating learning. A decisive evaluation of student progress ought to be conducted by displaying evidence from standard tests, observation, and informal checkups among others. The evaluation determines the problems and strengths that the students with disabilities harbor as individuals or groups. Such researchers as Byiers, Reichle, and Symons (2012) have applied a strategy of assessing the learning of students with special needs using the Single-Subject Experimental Design (SSED). Their research captures a wide variety of factors affecting the perception of learners, the challenges they surpass, as well as the pros and cons of the method in relaying individualized results. The situations of the special needs students are always diverse and unique as seen from the learners with ADHD or autism where each victim harbors different situations. The assessments provide the victim with know-how, skills, and understanding within the education context where such outcomes would otherwise be obsolete. Such assessment strategies as conferencing, interviewing, observations, performance recording on tasks, and self-assessments are used to gauge learners’ perceptions. This paper designs a research that can be used to assess the learning of students with special need while applying SSED. The research paper pays attention to the approaches of instructions delivery based on evidence and how the design is applied in handling disorders linked to language, speech and communication.
Problem Statement
The establishment of a research activity must be based on resolving existing problems or filling any apparent gaps in knowledge. In this regard, this design must isolate a problem that needs to be addressed through this proposed research design. Essentially, the SSED has been applied to investigate disorders in communications from 1960 to 1979. Researchers have, therefore, published studies supporting the application of SSED in assessing students with specials need in education (O'Neill, 2011). However, the application of SSED in assessing learners with disabilities raises issues in contemporary arguments that are based on evidence mainly. This paper designs a research activity to reveal decisive explanations about the use of SSED in evidence-based practices. Such explanations are essential in providing tactical information on educational disciplines and clinical practices. The SSED offers valid interior strengths fostering investigators, practitioners and instructors to question the applicability of group designs. These strengths make SSED a vital element of impacting valid change within the EBP. This design aims to point strategic approach in which SSED and EBP can be connected while basing on a valid research investigation. In a bid to connect these two vital parts of special education, the research may investigate the common SSEDs by evaluating their pros and cons while analyzing and evaluating it on the other hand.
Description of Subject
Since the SSED can involve one or several participants in order to compare between individuals as well as within the subject in a single assessment. The individuals involved in the research acts as the test and control subjects for their assessment. Essentially, performance attributed to the interventions rendered to the students with special needs is measured by setting a baseline reading which is contrasted during and/or after the intervention (Murphy & Bryan, 1980). The most usual research strategies involving single-subject designs use a person as participants while others involve a group as a participant. However, the group acts as an entity representing a single score for each period of measuring. The model must incorporate descriptive analysis of the setup that other researchers can use to verify the research independently. Participants of the research will be special needs children suffering from Autism Spectrum Disorder, Williams syndrome, and ADHD. The disorders and instrumentations required for the assessment are fundamental in order to identify the best applicable practices. The SSED analyzes the participating population repeatedly in order to test for variations alongside different conditions. It may involve repeated observations where the subjects are assessed over a period in order to establish differences from a base reading. The baseline will allow the research to identify the behaviors of the population sampled. A population comprised of students with similar special needs may offer similar problems while those with differently exposed disabilities require unique ways of assessment. For instance, a research may assess a learner with the Autism Spectrum Disorder before, during, and after the intervention using the SSED. Such an assessment will only relay the individual needs for that particular patient or for patients with the specific need. This intervention phase involves instructors on testing where the instructions are either withdrawn or delivered continuously when testing the effectiveness of learners understanding.
Variables
For this research, it will be essential to employ more than one dependent variable defined by the individual special needs. These variables are measured and confirmed through assessment and clinical records and professional reports regarding participants’ conditions on special education. The dependent variable of the research must be defined basing on their validity and consistency in operations as well as the capabilities to replicate the process of assessing. In perspective, the formation of dependent variable facilitating observations and empirical approvals such as the rate of reading keep a reliable baseline for the study. The researchers can assess the reading rates of students with special needs at the beginning of the research before proceeding to develop skills after learning. In essence, the perceptions of these learners may be different depending on how they are instructed and their special needs. The inapplicable dependent variables for this research may include those defined subjectively like in cases where opinionated entities like ‘Helping’ are not defined to reveal the rate of helping behaviors in students. Since these dependent variables must be measured repeatedly during and after the course of study, this research ought to have datasets to compare among and across subjects per the related period. In this respect, the variations occur between periods for one individual as well as across individuals. The dependent variables are evaluated in respect to its consistency where data informs about the progressive development of understanding and its rate. While investigating the variables for a Autistic child, such factors as the rate of reading, speaking and general communication can be assessed. This investigation may be addressed from another perspective when assessing the ADHD individuals as they relay unique outcomes. Finally, these variables should harbor some social significance since assessment does not only assist in developing the conceptual theory but also facilitates individual social prominence.
The actual assessment conducted by via SSED targets to evaluate the efficacy of intervention, practices, or behavior of the students under the special education. These variables are established operationally to enhance accuracy when interpreting the results and warranting similar assessment strategies. In fact, the procedures are defined in order to set equal standards of testing the students without deviation from norms since such changes may affect the reliability of the outcomes. The interventions are controlled actively when documenting the controls by determining how the variable ought to change. In this design, the researcher may note the impacts of easy and hard reading work of the learners performance in order to provide a systematic definition for the ‘hard’ and ‘easy’ operations. The independent variable must be cross-checked and be delivered consistently over time.
A-B-A-B Design
In the research, the first baseline (A) reading will be established by assessing the wording reading capabilities before commencing the intervention. Whitehurst (2014) credits baseline data as the basic point of reference to any variation during A-B-A-B design. After recording the baseline, the research can implement intervention where learners are taught through the different approaches per student. The first intervention (B) assessment will incorporate the same testing standards where data is recorded on how the students developed skills. The test is conducted during intervention. According to Beretvas and Chung (2008), the performance measured during the first intervention phase of A-B-A-B design enhances modifications of instructions during the next instructions phase. The intervention is then withdrawn to take the second baseline. The interventions are modified during the second testing in order to approach the instructions from more fitting approaches. After taking the second baseline (A), the modified instructions are rendered where students use practical and visual readings and demonstrations. Considering that the initial intervention does not incorporate visual aids, the research expects that the new approach will relay better instructions to learners with their unique disabilities in order to determine the most suited approaches. The second intervention (B) will record progress from the later baseline in order to identify any changes in the student’s capabilities to read and communicate. At this point, the modified instructions have been investigated and modified to fit the student’s participating in the research activity (O'Neill, 2011).
Multiple Baseline Design
The multiple-baseline design is applicable when providing answers to research questions about single intervention involving more than 2 special needs students, actions, stimuli or setups. This design incorporates prototype AB models in a series where each follows the other. When these designs involved a random period of interventions, they are demonstrated as controls. In this research, the researcher must select three or more conditions such as Autism Spectrum Disorder, ADHD, and Williams syndrome that can be used to implement interventions. The variations of periodic data collection are plotted per condition using the AB designs. The baseline data is collected together at one point before commencing any interventions for the learners. Once the data has been collected, the intervention commences for one condition while other remain within the baseline state. When the intervention stabilizes for the first condition, the intervention is introduced to the next one where the process proceeds to the remaining conditions. The multiple-baseline design verifies the presences of an operating relation among behavior and intervention by continued assessment of the condition. This model does not demand the withdrawal of intervention, which makes it suitable for implementing other behaviors and documenting controls involving various conditions. Although this strategy of assessment is viable while evaluating from a positivist orientation, the model also poses challenges since interventions cannot be rendered immediately even during harmful behaviors. It also harbors extra attention for making concurrent assessments critical for all conditions. Finally, the approach does not warrant the establishment of reliable controls of experiments. The figure below shows the concurrent follow-up of interventions alongside the continued baseline for three conditions as researched by Johnston (2010).
Figure 1: Model of the basic features of a multiple-baseline design (Johnston, 2010)
The implementation of multiple-baseline design must be considerate of several fundamental issues incorporating the conditions’ independence, functionality, and phases of experimentation. This design is most suited in situations where a similar intervention can be rendered for all the conditions. In this regard, the conditions must be independent from each other in order to avoid the risk associated to generalizing the effects of intervention on untreated issues. For instance, there are generalization that may arise when an educator teaches students how to arrange the items “pencil, pen and rubber” by pointing on a communication board. If a student manages to point on the pencil, an instructor may assume that the student now can identify the pen and rubber too. In this respect, each condition must be treated individually in order to enhance understanding and appropriate treatments. Across individuals, the assumptions may involve cognitive understanding of learners where a delay in raising hands enhances increase the number of hands rose. Essentially, such a delay be facilitating the student with slow processing abilities to internalize and react to the questions asked. The number of hands being raised increases even without prior intervention. The research must also involve functionally related conditions. The similarity of the conditions facilitates the replication of interventions. Although the similarities are not empirically proven among individuals, research tends to select the subjects with related learning and behavior characteristics. The material of the study should lie within the level of learners’ education in order to align their intellectual capacities. For instance, the assessment of subjects can involve autistic children within the grade 4 of their special education curriculum. This will dictate that the researchers have adequate bases for setting up functionally related conditions. Finally, the interventions should be withheld for an extended period in order to avoid the extinction of participant’s behavior as Cuvo (1979) stipulates.
1st Variation of Multiple-Baseline Design
Ferron and Scott (2014) inform that the disparities of multiple-baseline design can also be termed as the multiple probe designs. They handle the challenges that arise after the extensions of baseline and intervention. Since multiple-baseline design collects simultaneous data across the conditions, these baselines dataset increases across the conditions until the final one. The baseline data, therefore, depicts the effectiveness of intervention related to the first condition. Moreover, the research proceeds to collect even more data on the other conditions. The extension on data collections may arouse problems about applied setting and consume longer time than assured. The data in the multiple probe design should not be collected in a continuous manner like in the baseline design. The performances of the students can be recorded irregularly and differentiated across the conditions.
Figure 2: The basic features of multiple-probe design (Johnston, 2010)
The baselines are taken for each condition differently depending on instructions. According to Baek and Ferron (2012), the multiple-baseline design applies in cases where intervention influences the perceptions of learners. Such instances can be exemplified by areas where students of special education do not comprehend the skills that are not taught. However, the understanding is apparent to those topics that have been taught. It also applies in cases where a prolonged baseline harbors negative impacts on the population or experiment. For this research, the probe design may involve the collection of baseline for 3 conditions where the intervention proceeds until the first condition stabilizes. The following conditions 2 and 3 do not use separate baseline record from the first probe. Once the intervention is introduced on the condition 1, a new baseline probe is set within it for the following condition 2 or 3. At this point, the research assesses the performances at regular intervals but with fewer rates. The baseline probe for the 3rd condition is taken in the course of condition 2 intervention. This procedure is followed until all the conditions have been assessed. However, the researcher should opt to perform at least 3 baseline probes before commencing the interventions. Such other researchers as Hawkins (2001) emphasize on the importance of strong and reliable baselines comprising of more than 2 probes. The baseline facilitates establishment of stable base performance that elevates abilities of the researcher to record the functional relations of intervention with subject’s behavior. A concurrent introduction of intervention across the condition is vital in facilitating performance contrast on the issues being studied.
2nd Variation of Multiple-baseline Design
The second variation is termed as the parallel treatment design, which understood as 2 simultaneous parallel multiple probe designs set to evaluate the efficiency of 1 or more interventions regarding 2 independent variables across 3 distance conditions (Murphy & Bryan, 1980). This approach is suitable when answering questions that target on assess the comparative effectiveness of interventions. In this approach, students can be taught to read 12 signs categorized in 6 pairs of words. The first 3 word pairs can be taught by the progressive delays in time while the other 3 are taught using constant time intervals. This approach would assess the most suited strategy in enhancing skills inquisition. The baseline probe alternates with the interventions on the lagged time format in at least 3 yoked pairs of features where word reading is performed depending on an established schedule. The baseline must contain the data for all the dependent variables. When the baseline data stabilizes the interventions commences with the 1st yoked pair of the independent variable (Beretvas & Chung, 2008). From this point, data is collect during interventions on the 1st yoked pair while the others remain stagnant. The collection of data on the following pairs commences when the performances reach the standards set before the assessment commenced. During this second intervention, the data is collected for the first 2 pairs. This process of probing proceeds until all the yoked pairs are assessed as they reach the standards set for them.
Figure 3: An example of parallel treatment design (Johnston, 2010)
The probe design faces limitation of baseline data and changes attributed to observing and collecting information about behavior. The most applicable approach can involve setting the arrangement of 12 items like animals and rearranging them into different groups in order to study how the students with disabilities perceive them after instructions. They may be arranged in groups of 3, 4 and 6 alongside an irregular and constant time delays in order to facilitate this research activity. While documenting the performance, the research must report whether the students respondent to the changes in animal arrangements as well as the different ways of delaying instructions.
References
Baek, E. K., & Ferron, J. M. (2012). Multilevel models for multiple-baseline data: Modeling across-participant variation in autocorrelation and residual variance. Behav Res Behavior Research Methods, 45(1), 65-74.
Beretvas, S. N., & Chung, H. (2008). A review of meta-analyses of single-subject experimental designs: Methodological issues and practice. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 2(3), 129-141.
Byiers, B. J., Reichle, J., & Symons, F. J. (2012). Single-Subject Experimental Design for Evidence-Based Practice. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology Am J Speech Lang Pathol, 21(4), 397. Retrieved March 23, 2016, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3992321/
Cuvo, A. J. (1979). Teaching Mending Skills to Mentally Retarded Adolescents. J Appl Behav Anal Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12(3), 401-406.
Ferron, J., & Scott, H. (2014). Multiple Baseline Designs. Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online, 6(5).
Hawkins, C. (2001). Single Subject Research: Applications in Educational and Clinical Settings. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities J Appl Res Int Dis, 14(2), 155-157.
Johnston, S. (2010). Multiple Baseline and Multiple Probe Designs. In R. O‘Neill, J. McDonnell, W. Jenson (Eds.). Single Case Research Design: Applications in Educational and Community Settings. Published, 05/2010.
Murphy, R. J., & Bryan, A. J. (1980). Multiple-Baseline and Multiple-Probe Designs: Practical Alternatives for Special Education Assessment and Evaluation. The Journal of Special Education, 14(3), 325-335.
O'Neill, R. E. (2011). Single case research designs in educational and community settings. Boston: Pearson.
Whitehurst, G. (2014). The Cost of Increased Validity: Combining a Multiple Baseline Design with an ABAB Design. JAT GSTF Journal on Aviation Technology, 1(1).
