Overview
Respond to a colleagues’ posts by identifying strengths and weaknesses from your colleague’s explanation of practical and ethical considerations related to using reversal design.
Be sure to support your posts and responses with specific references to behavior-analytic theory and research. In addition to the Learning Resources, search the Walden Library and/or the internet for peer-reviewed articles to support your posts and responses. Use proper APA format and citations, including those in the Learning Resources.
A reversal design, also called a withdrawal design, is a type of single-subject design used to determine whether changes in behavior are directly caused by the intervention rather than by other environmental factors. By systematically introducing and withdrawing the treatment, withdrawal designs allow for a reliable assessment of the intervention’s effectiveness (Alnahdi, 2015).
A target behavior example is keeping the child seated during class. This behavior is easily observed and measurable, making it practical for a reversal design. Reversal, or withdrawal, designs systematically apply and remove the independent variable to compare effects across baseline and intervention phases (Hitchcock et al., 2010, as cited in Alnahdi, 2015). For instance, the intervention could involve reinforcement such as verbal praise or rewards like extra playtime when the child remains seated. If the reinforcement is removed, the child may start to leave their seats more often, demonstrating that the intervention is responsible.
Using a reversal design with a child staying seated during class is ethically appropriate because withdrawing reinforcement does not put the child or others at risk. Temporarily removing a seemingly effective intervention to test its impact can raise ethical concerns (Cooper et al., 2019). However, because the behavior is not harmful, the intervention can be reinstated quickly, maintaining the child’s safety and well-being. Any temporary decrease in the behavior would likely result only in minor classroom disruption, which is reversible once reinforcement is reinstated. This process also allows for a clear demonstration of how reinforcement affects seated behavior. Overall, this approach is ethically sound and ensures the child’s best interests are protected throughout the process.
A behavior for which a reversal design would be ethically inappropriate is self-injurious behavior, such as a child biting themselves. Removing an intervention could put the child at serious risk, so reversal designs should not be used. Ethical considerations are important to ensure interventions are not withdrawn in ways that could cause harm, just to ensure reliability. Sometimes, applied behavior analysts cannot fully analyze behavior due to practical, financial, legal, ethical, or social limitations (Cooper et al., 2020). In these cases, alternative designs need to be applied to gather data that exhibits ethically sound reliability. This would allow applied behavioral analysis to evaluate treatment effectiveness while still providing interventions that reduce harm and promote positive behaviors.
Amie
REFERNCES
Alnahdi, G. H. (2015). Single-subject designs in special education: advantages and limitations. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 15(4), 257–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12039Links to an external site.
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2019). Applied Behavior Analysis (3rd ed.). Pearson Education (US). https://mbsdirect.vitalsource.com/books/9780134798...