jos draft of 11-13-08 … · web view70 75 75 outcome2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 outcome3 0 1 2 3 4...
TRANSCRIPT
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
102030405060708090
100
Week
% C
ompl
eted
Ass
ignm
ents
Baseline Reinforcement
Figure 6.2. The effect of contingent reinforcement on the percentage of homework assignments
completed.
1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
102030405060708090
100
Week
% C
ompl
eted
Ass
ignm
ents
Baseline Reinforcement
Level
Figure 6.3. Two possible different within-condition levels of completed homework assignments
(lowest level = ●, highest level = ○) and one data series with no discernable level (▲).
2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
102030405060708090
100
Week
% C
ompl
eted
Ass
ignm
ents
Baseline Reinforcement
Figure 6.4. Three different types of trend (no trend = ●, negative/descending/deteriorating trend
= ○, positive/ascending/improving trend = ▲).
3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
102030405060708090
100
Week
% C
ompl
eted
Ass
ignm
ents
Baseline Reinforcement
Figure 6.5. Variability (○) and no variability (●) in within-condition patterns of completed
homework assignments.
4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
102030405060708090
100
Week
% C
ompl
eted
Ass
ignm
ents
Baseline Reinforcement
Figure 6.6. Stable baseline, predicted (○) and actual (●) intervention outcome data.
5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
102030405060708090
100
Week
% C
ompl
eted
Ass
ignm
ents
Baseline Reinforcement
Figure 6.7. Stable baseline: no change in trend or level from baseline to intervention.
6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
102030405060708090
100
Week
% C
ompl
eted
Ass
ignm
ents
Baseline Reinforcement
Figure 6.8. Stable baseline: change for the better in level (albeit insufficient) but no change in
trend from baseline to intervention.
7
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
102030405060708090
100
Week
% C
ompl
eted
Ass
ignm
ents
Baseline Reinforcement
Figure 6.9. Stable baseline: change for the better in level but no change in trend from baseline to
intervention.
8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
102030405060708090
100
Week
% C
ompl
eted
Ass
ignm
ents
Baseline Reinforcement
Figure 6.10. Stable baseline: change for the worse in level but no change in trend from baseline
to intervention.
9
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
102030405060708090
100
Week
% C
ompl
eted
Ass
ignm
ents
Baseline Reinforcement
Figure 6.11. Stable baseline: no change in level, and change for the better in trend from baseline
to intervention.
10
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
102030405060708090
100
Week
% C
ompl
eted
Ass
ignm
ents
Baseline Reinforcement
Figure 6.12. Deteriorating (decreasing) baseline: no change in level and change for the better in
trend from baseline to intervention.
11
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
102030405060708090
100
Week
% C
ompl
eted
Ass
ignm
ents
Baseline Reinforcement
Figure 6.13. Improving (increasing) baseline: no change in level or trend from baseline to
intervention.
12
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
102030405060708090
100
Week
% C
ompl
eted
Ass
ignm
ents
Baseline Reinforcement
Figure 6.14. Improving baseline: change for the worse in trend but no change in level from
baseline to intervention.
13
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
102030405060708090
100
Week
% C
ompl
eted
Ass
ignm
ents
Baseline Reinforcement
Figure 6.15. Stable baseline: change for the better in level and trend from baseline to
intervention.
14
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
102030405060708090
100
Week
% C
ompl
eted
Ass
ignm
ents
Baseline Reinforcement
Figure 6.16. Stable baseline: change for the better in level and change for the worse in trend from
baseline to intervention.
15
Figure 6.17. Stable baseline: change for the better in level from baseline to intervention.
16
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
102030405060708090
100
Week
% C
ompl
eted
Ass
ignm
ents
Baseline Reinforcement
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
102030405060708090
100
Week
% C
ompl
eted
Ass
ignm
ents
Baseline Reinforcement
Figure 6.18. Variable baseline: ambiguous change in level (insufficient in any case), and change
for the better in variability from baseline to intervention.
17
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
102030405060708090
100
Week
% C
ompl
eted
Ass
ignm
ents
Baseline Reinforcement
Figure 6.19. Stable baseline: delayed change for the better in level and trend upon
implementation of intervention.
18
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
102030405060708090
100
Week
% C
ompl
eted
Ass
ignm
ents
Baseline Reinforcement
Figure 6.20. No overlap between adjacent phases and change for the better from baseline to
intervention (horizontal dashed lines represent the range of intervention values).
19
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
102030405060708090
100
Week
% C
ompl
eted
Ass
ignm
ents
Baseline Reinforcement
Figure 6.21. Complete overlap between adjacent phases and no change from baseline to
intervention (horizontal dashed lines represent the range of intervention values, which is the
same for both phases).
20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
102030405060708090
100
Week
% C
ompl
eted
Ass
ignm
ents
Baseline Reinforcement
Figure 6.22. Complete overlap between adjacent phases but change in trend from baseline to
intervention (horizontal dashed lines represent range of intervention values).
21
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
102030405060708090
100
Week
% C
ompl
eted
Ass
ignm
ents
Baseline Reinforcement
?
Figure 6.23. B-only design data.
22
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
102030405060708090
100
Week
% C
ompl
eted
Ass
ignm
ents
Baseline Reinforcement
Figure 6.24. B-only design data with three possible levels of baseline data.
23
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
102030405060708090
100
Week
% C
ompl
eted
Ass
ignm
ents
Baseline Reinforcement
Figure 6.25. B-only design data with two possible baseline trends.
24
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
102030405060708090
100
Week
% C
ompl
eted
Ass
ignm
ents
Baseline Reinforcement
Figure 6.26. B-only design data with variable baseline data.
25