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.
Reversal designs (A-B-A-B) are powerful in applied behavior analysis because they allow us to demonstrate strong experimental control. Practically, this design helps confirm that the intervention not other environmental factors is responsible for behavior change. For example, if the target behavior is eye contact and the intervention is praise, an A-B-A-B design would show increases in eye contact during praise phases and decreases during baseline (Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2020). This pattern rules out coincidence and assures us that the intervention is effective.
At the same time, reversal designs have ethical challenges. Removing a treatment that is effective is not always acceptable. With eye contact, removing praise may not harm the client, so the design can be ethically applied. But with dangerous behaviors, such as self-injurious behavior (SIB), it would be unethical to withdraw treatment. I have worked with a client whose SIB took a long time to reduce through intervention. Although a reversal could provide clear scientific proof that my intervention caused the reduction, it would risk exposing her to harm again. Her mother, teachers, and I would not accept that. The BACB Ethics Code emphasizes prioritizing client safety and dignity over research control (BACB, 2020).
A reversal is more acceptable for lower-risk behaviors. For example, with the same client’s off-task behavior (operationally defined as looking away from instructional materials for more than 5 consecutive seconds, talking to peers, tapping objects, or inappropriate hand-raising), I could use a reversal design. Briefly, withdrawing and reintroducing praise or task modifications would not harm her, and it would confirm whether the intervention is responsible for increased on-task behavior.
When reversal is not ethical, other designs are better choices. Multiple baseline designs across behaviors, settings, or participants allow us to demonstrate functional relations without withdrawing treatment (Cooper et al., 2020, ch. 9). Alnahdi (2015) also explains that while reversal designs are strong scientifically, they are not always feasible in special education, making multiple baseline or changing criterion designs more ethical and practical. Newer alternatives, like single-subject randomization designs, can also provide rigorous evidence while avoiding the risks of withdrawal (Rvachew & Matthews, 2017).
In conclusion, reversal designs have clear strengths and weaknesses. They provide confidence that our interventions are working, but they can pose ethical risks if removing treatment exposes the client to harm. My rule of practice is to evaluate the client, the behavior, and the surrounding people and environments. For benign targets such as eye contact or off-task, reversals can be appropriate. But for dangerous behaviors like SIB, reversal is not justified. Instead, we should select designs that protect the client while still producing reliable evidence of effectiveness.
References
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/10.1111/1471-3802.12039
Behavior Analyst Certification Board. (2020). Ethics code for behavior analysts. Author.
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2020). Applied behavior analysis (3rd ed.). Pearson.
Rvachew, S., & Matthews, T. (2017). Demonstrating treatment efficacy using the single subject randomization design: A tutorial and demonstration. Journal of Communication Disorders, 67, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2017.04.003
Walden University, LLC. (2019). Single-subject design [Video]. Walden University Blackboard. https://waldenu.instructure.com
Walden University, LLC. (2019–2021). Single-subject design with Steven Little, PhD and Angeleque Akin-Little, PhD [Video]. Walden University Blackboard. https://waldenu.instructure.com