Scholarlink

<p>The adapted alternating treatments design (AATD) is a single-case experimental design often used to compare the efficiency of different teaching procedures. Despite a growing body of research using AATD, it remains unknown whether matched instructional sets produce comparable acquisition rates when there is no difference in teaching procedures. This study explored natural differences in acquisition rates across matched instructional sets using identical teaching procedures. Target sets were equated for difficulty using a multi-step logical analysis that considered number of syllables, initial consonant sounds, overlapping sounds, articulation errors, visual complexity (for tacts and receptive identification), and within-set disparity. Eight children with autism were taught sight words, tacts, or receptive identification, and results were evaluated across two mastery criteria. Findings revealed that even when identical teaching procedures were used, one instructional set often reached mastery first by a median difference of 4 sessions to criterion for the stringent criterion and 3 for the lenient criterion (range, 0 to &gt; 20). Had this occurred in a typical AATD comparing teaching procedures, the effect may have been misattributed to the procedure. These findings highlight the importance of considering the magnitude of the difference, as well as replication, when using AATD and suggest guidelines for determining meaningful differences in future research.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Toward a Better Understanding of Meaningful Differences in the Adapted Alternating Treatments Design

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年10月22日

查看全文
  • Nicole Rodriguez,
  • Emily Ferris,
  • Paige O’Neill,
  • Nicole Pantano,
  • Catalina Rey

摘要

The adapted alternating treatments design (AATD) is a single-case experimental design often used to compare the efficiency of different teaching procedures. Despite a growing body of research using AATD, it remains unknown whether matched instructional sets produce comparable acquisition rates when there is no difference in teaching procedures. This study explored natural differences in acquisition rates across matched instructional sets using identical teaching procedures. Target sets were equated for difficulty using a multi-step logical analysis that considered number of syllables, initial consonant sounds, overlapping sounds, articulation errors, visual complexity (for tacts and receptive identification), and within-set disparity. Eight children with autism were taught sight words, tacts, or receptive identification, and results were evaluated across two mastery criteria. Findings revealed that even when identical teaching procedures were used, one instructional set often reached mastery first by a median difference of 4 sessions to criterion for the stringent criterion and 3 for the lenient criterion (range, 0 to > 20). Had this occurred in a typical AATD comparing teaching procedures, the effect may have been misattributed to the procedure. These findings highlight the importance of considering the magnitude of the difference, as well as replication, when using AATD and suggest guidelines for determining meaningful differences in future research.