Single Subject Review ABAB Design

1. APA Citation - Cited within the review
2. Article Elements
a. Type of Design
- ABAB or Reversal Design
b. IV
- The Intervention or called the Mystery Motivators Intervention
- What can be manipulated, effects the dependent variable, and in this design the dependent variable is the disruptive behavior
c. DV
- Disruptive behavior
- 1. Keep hands and feet to yourself
- 2. Remain on Task
- 3. Sit or Stand properly on the rug
d. Functional Relationship
- The reversal design or ABAB Design shows a functional relationship through the data observed and recorded on graphs for 8 students between the ages of 3-5. With the reversal design the intervention is implemented after baseline data is observed, then baseline data is observed after the intervention is stopped, a time period passes and the intervention is reintroduced and then the data collected shows whether or not the intervention changed the behavior, and in this case it did therefore a functional relationship exist.
- All the students attend a head start program and all had one or more disruptive behaviors being observed to test an intervention on and that was successful in decreasing the amount of inappropriate disruptive behavior.
e. Experimental Control
- Is easily demonstrated throughout the intervention because the students are all observed from a Head Start program ranging in age 3 to 5 together, and all were of Hispanic descent, also spoke two languages, and Spanish was the main language spoken in all the children’s home.
- With the use of a mystery motivator students stay focused and actually improve on their disruptive behaviors, and with “interdependent group contingencies reinforce the group based upon the entire class meeting a specified criterion” (Murphy Theodore, Aloiso, Alric-Edwards, & Hughes 2007)

f. Functional Analysis
- Is demonstrated throughout the graphs of the data provided in the article.
- “This research-into-practice study implements an empirically validated intervention into an applied setting that is similar to what would be expected in typical classrooms across the country.” (Murphy et al. 2007)
g. Operational Definition
- Operational definition to “keep hands and feet to yourself”: “no intentional bodily contact between two or more people, including touching, kicking, hitting, biting, and removal of another person’s clothing accessories.” (Murphy et al. 2007)
- Operational definition to “remain on task”: “not leaving the rug area or being oriented in a direction other than the teacher or the assignment for more than 10 s.” (Murphy et al. 2007)
- Operational Definition to “sit or stand properly on the rug” “not laying on the rug either on one’s stomach or back, not swinging one’s arms and legs, not standing or kneeling, or not running around in circles.” (Murphy et al. 2007)
h. Social Validity
- Social Validity, in my opinion is reached because the treatment and the behaviors that are targeted for change are socially accepted and the treatment and implementation of the intervention is ethical.
i. Reliability
- This intervention is reliable because the data and graphs prove that the intervention increased acceptable behavior in the preschool classroom especially on the eight students observed and put through the intervention. The graphs show that after the reversal design intervention is implemented the changes are for the better.
j. Baseline Phase –
- “Baseline data were collected for 8 days. During this time, the teacher employed her typical method of classroom management. This included verbal reprimands and time-out techniques.” (Murphy et al. 2007)
- Student 1: Female, 4 years old, “happy, and even mannered,” generally on task, gets along with others, about to start kindergarten. (Murphy et al. 2007)
- Student 2: Male, 3 years old, generally distracted even so by peers misbehaving, described as mainly off task and uninterested in participating in class instructions. (Murphy et al. 2007)
- Student 3: Female 4 years old, usually on task, and easily liked, at times non compliant to instructions and directions, about to start kindergarten. (Murphy et al. 2007)
- Student 4: Female, age 4, could be domineering at times, but friendly also, was about to start kindergarten. (Murphy et al. 2007)
- Student 5: Female, 4 years old, could be easily distracted by off task students, displayed some problems with interactions that were appropriate to her age. (Murphy et al. 2007)
- Student 6: Male, 5 years old, gets along with other students, excited to participate, but could go off task especially if others were already off task. (Murphy et al. 2007)
- Student 7: Female, 4 years old, quiet and shy and needed encouragement to participate in class activities, and remained on task. (Murphy et al. 2007)
- Student 8: Male, 3 years old, did not share well with others, and somewhat distracted. (Murphy et al. 2007)
k. Intervention Phase
- Disruptive behaviors were observed in 15 second intervals over 15 minutes and graphs were created.
- The teacher was trained with respect to proper treatment administration.
- “Must follow the classroom rules. Rules posted on a sheet of oak tag in the front of classroom, and pictures accompanied the rules to help the preschoolers understand them more clearly.” (Murphy et al. 2007)
- each need to earn five or fewer checks to receive motivational reward
- Example of rewards included: games, free time, stickers, dance activity, books, pencils, or a puppet show.
- The first part of the intervention phase was introduced in the first morning activity. This activity was a 15 minute group activity of many children that continued for 8 days. Before each day the students were reminded and read the rules of the intervention and were able to hear the rules in English and Spanish to be sure that they were clearly understood by all. The students were informed that if all the students met the criterion of 5 checks or less per day they would all receive a motivator from the mystery motivator box. Checks were accumulated by not following the rules; therefore each student had 5 chances to still receive a motivator. Wrapping up the end of the day, the teacher would inform the students on if they had all passed and got to receive a motivator or if they did not pass followed by why they did not all pass. This method allowed for not just one child to succeed or one to fail.
- “After two weeks the intervention was withdrawn for 6 school days, and then the intervention was reinstated for another 8 school days.” (Murphy et al. 2007)
- After the intervention had then been implemented again, and after it had been withdrawn the first time, the data collected showed that the intervention did in fact work and with the mystery reinforcers the students disruptive behaviors did decrease. The graphs of each student show a functional relationship that the intervention did decrease the amount of disruptive behavior.

l. Misc
- The title of the article is Interdependent Group Contingency and Mystery Motivators to Reduce Preschool Disruptive Behavior by: Kelly A. Murphy, Lea A. Theodore, Danielle Aloiso and, Jolie M. Alric-Edwards
- The graphs that are in the article that show the functional relationship, the data observed, data plotted on a the graph, the change in behavior after the intervention is introduced, change in behavior after withdrawal of intervention, and then the behavior after the intervention is reintroduced. The graphs are on page 59 of the article.