The single-case adapted alternating treatments design allows for an experimental comparison between two independent variables applied across two equally difficult, yet functionally independent, dependent variables. The design has been used prominently within the special education and behavior analysis literature since its inception. Despite its history and continued use, there are currently no formalized quality standards specific to the adapted alternating treatments design. Given the rise of evidence-based practices and the increased number of organizations developing quality and rigor standards, a discussion and evaluation of quality indicators specific to adapted alternating treatments designs is warranted. We provide an overview of quality indicators and examine their prevalence over the years within a subset of studies commonly incorporating the adapted alternating treatments design. Implications for researchers who use the design and organizations that develop standards for single-case research are discussed. Copies of coding tables and syntax in Microsoft Excel and SPSS formats may be obtained via Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/guw6h/.
AlbertoP. A.TroutmanA. C. (2006). Applied behavior analysis for teachers. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
2.
AultM. J.WoleryM.DoyleP. M.GastD. L. (1989). Review of comparative studies in the instruction of students with moderate and severe handicaps. Exceptional Children, 55, 346–356.
3.
BennettK. D.AljehanyM. S.AltafE. M. (2017). Systematic review of video-based instruction component and parametric analyses. Journal of Special Education Technology, 32, 80–90.
4.
BrowderD. M.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.SpoonerF.MimsP. J.BakerJ. N. (2009). Using time delay to teach literacy to students with severe developmental disabilities. Exceptional Children, 75, 343–364.
5.
ByiersB. J.ReichleJ.SymonsF. J. (2012). Single-subject experimental design for evidence-based practice. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 21, 397–414.
6.
CengherM.ShamounK.MossP.RollD.FelicianoG.FienupD. M. (2016). A comparison of the effects of two prompt-fading strategies on skill acquisition in children with autism spectrum disorders. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 9, 115–125.
7.
CookB. G.BuysseV.KlingnerJ.LandrumT. J.McWilliamR. A.TankersleyM.TestD. W. (2015). CEC’s standards for classifying the evidence base of practices in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 36, 220–234.
8.
CoonJ. T.MiguelC. F. (2012). The role of increased exposure to transfer-of-stimulus control procedures on the acquisition of intraverbal behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 45, 657–666.
Division for Early Childhood. (2016). Division for early childhood of the council for exception children. Available from http://www.dec-sped.org/
11.
DoyleP. M.WoleryM.AultM. J.GastD. L. (1988). System of least prompts: A literature review of procedural parameters. The Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 13, 28–40.
12.
FisherW. W.PiazzaC. C.RoaneH. S. (Eds.). (2011). Handbook of applied behavior analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
13.
GastD. L. (2011a). An experimental approach for selecting a response-prompting strategy for children with developmental disabilities. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 5, 149–155.
14.
GastD. L. (2011b). A rejoinder to Leaf: What constitutes efficient, applied, and trial and error. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 5, 234–238.
15.
GastD. L.LedfordJ. R. (Eds.). (2014). Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
16.
GastD. L.WoleryM. (1988). Parallel treatments design: A nested single subject design for comparing instructional procedures. Education and Treatment of Children, 11, 270–285.
17.
HolcombeA.WoleryM.GastD. L. (1994). Comparative single-subject research: Description of designs and discussion of problems. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 14, 119–145.
18.
HolcombeA.WoleryM.SnyderE. (1994). Effects of two levels of procedural fidelity with constant time delay on children’s learning. Journal of Behavioral Education, 4, 49–73.
19.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. (2004). 20 U.S.C. § 1400.
20.
JohnstonJ. M. (1988). Strategic and tactical limits of comparison studies. The Behavior Analyst, 11, 1–9.
21.
KennedyC. H. (2005). Single-case designs for educational research. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
22.
KratochwillT. R.LevinJ. R. (Eds.). (1992). Single-case research design and analysis: New directions for psychology and education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23.
LeafJ. B. (2011). An experimental approach for selecting a response-prompting strategy for children with developmental disabilities: A reply to Gast. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 5, 226–233.
24.
LedfordJ. R.ChazinK. T.HarbinE. R.WardS. E. (2017). Massed trials versus trials embedded into game play: Child outcomes and preference. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 37, 107–120.
25.
LedfordJ. R.GastD. L. (2018). Single case research methodology. New York, NY: Routledge.
26.
LedfordJ. R.LaneJ. D.ElamK. L.WoleryM. (2012). Using response-prompting procedures during small-group direct instruction: Outcomes and procedural variations. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 117, 413–434.
27.
LedfordJ. R.LaneJ. D.ZimmermanK. N.ChazinK. T.AyresK. A. (2016, April). Single Case Analysis and Review Framework (SCARF). Retrieved from http://vkc.mc.vanderbilt.edu/ebip/scarf/
ReichowB.WoleryM. (2009). Comparison of everyday and every-fourth-day probe sessions with the simultaneous prompting procedure. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 29, 79–89.
30.
SchlosserR. W.KoulR. K. (2015). Speech output technologies in interventions for individuals with autism spectrum disorders: A scoping review. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 31, 285–309.
31.
SchusterJ. W.MorseT. E.AultM. J.DoyleP. M.CrawfordM. R.WoleryM. (1998). Constant time delay with chained tasks: A review of the literature. Education and Treatment of Children, 21, 74–106.
32.
ShepleyC.LaneJ. D.AultM. (2018). A review and critical examination of the system of least prompts. Remedial and Special Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932517751213
33.
SindelarP. T.RosenbergM. S.WilsonR. J. (1985). An adapted alternating treatments design for instructional research. Education and Treatment of Children, 8, 67–76.
34.
SmithK. A.ShepleyS. B.AlexanderJ. L.AyresK. M. (2015). The independent use of self-instructions for the acquisition of untrained multi-step tasks for individuals with an intellectual disability: A review of the literature. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 40, 19–30.
35.
Van HoutenR. (1987). Comparing treatment techniques: A cautionary note. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20, 109–110.
36.
VennM. L.WoleryM.GrecoM. (1996). Effects of every-day and every-other-day instruction. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 11, 15–28.
37.
WalkerG. (2008). Constant and progressive time delay procedures for teaching children with autism: A literature review. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38, 261–275.
38.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2017). Procedures and standards handbooks (Version 4.0). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
39.
WoleryM. (2013). A commentary: Single-case design technical document of the What Works Clearinghouse. Remedial and Special Education, 34, 39–43.
40.
WoleryM.EzellH. K. (1993). Subject descriptions and single-subject research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 642–647.
41.
WoleryM.GastD. L.LedfordJ. R. (2014). Comparison designs. In GastD. L.LedfordJ. R. (Eds.), Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences (pp. 297–345). New York, NY: Routledge.
42.
WoleryM.HemmeterM. L. (2011). Classroom instruction: Background, assumptions, and challenges. Journal of Early Intervention, 33, 371–380.
43.
WoleryM.HolcombeA.CybriwskyC.DoyleP. M.SchusterJ. W.AultM. J.GastD. L. (1992). Constant time delay with discrete responses: A review of effectiveness and demographic, procedural, and methodological parameters. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 13, 239–266.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
