Review of Methods to Equate Target Sets in the Adapted Alternating Treatments Design

Abstract

The adapted alternating treatments design is a commonly used experimental design in skill acquisition research. This design allows for the evaluation of two or more independent variables on responding to unique target sets. Equating target sets is necessary to ensure a valid comparison of the independent variables. To date, there is little guidance on best practice when equating target sets and it is unclear how researchers have done so previously. We reviewed the reported methods used to equate target sets in articles published using the adapted alternating treatments design in five behavior-analytic journals. Just over half of the studies published using the adapted alternating treatments design reported any method to equate target sets and the methods varied considerably. Alternative methods, such as random assignment, were prevalent. Considerations for best practice and avenues for future research are discussed.

Comparison of sounds and words as sample stimuli for discrimination training

“…Researchers may also wish to create structured criteria (e.g., Fisher et al, 2003;Hagopian et al, 1997) or statistical guidelines to visually analyze and select targets to pair together when using programs such as MATLAB ® . Practitioners should also consider these variables and identify rules or criteria about how stimuli are assigned into sets for skill-acquisition programs (Cariveau et al, 2020).…”

“…Nevertheless, researchers often consider levels of disparity anecdotally (e.g., Fisher et al, 2019) rather than developing methods to directly evaluate the effects of stimulus disparity on target behavior. For example, researchers anecdotally describe differences in components of stimuli across conditions, such as the number of syllables, configuration of the words, beginning sounds, ending sounds, and repetitive syllables or sounds (e.g., Cariveau et al, 2020; Wolery et al, 2014). Cariveau et al (2020) recommended direct evaluations of these components of stimuli (i.e., stimulus disparity), rather than relying solely on logical analyses to assign stimuli to conditions within adapted alternating treatment designs.…”

Comparing the Minimum Celeration Line and the Beat Your Personal Best Goal-Setting Approaches During the Mathematical Practice of Students Diagnosed with Autism

“…An adapted alternating treatments design with a control condition (Cariveau et al 2020) was embedded in a concurrent multiple baseline across participants design (Carr 2005). The order of practice was alternated each day randomly, and the control condition was probed three times a week.…”

Replicating stimulus‐presentation orders in discrimination training

“…Comparisons consisted of three auditoryvisual targets assigned to sets. The experimenter used a logical analysis procedure (Wolery et al, 2018; lists of stimuli provided in Online Supporting Information) to equate the target sets (Cariveau et al, 2020). To try to equate stimuli across comparisons, auditory sample stimuli were assigned to sets so that the number of syllables across conditions was within two syllables.…”