SIGNATURE ASSESSMENT FINAL PROJECT 1

Signature Assessment Final Project

E’lisa Evans

The Chicago School

Course AB545ON: Measurement and Design

Professor Polis
SIGNATURE ASSESSMENT FINAL PROJECT 2

Scenario 1

Experimental Question

What is the effect of implementing response interruption and redirection (RIRD) on the

frequency of vocal stereotypy in Marco, a 5-year old boy with autism, during instructional and

independent activities?

Independent Variable

The independent variable in this example is the Response Interruption and Redirection

and asking him questions each time he engages in stereotypic behavior.

Dependent Variable

Behavior (Dependent Variable): Vocal Stereotypy

Operational Definition of Vocal Stereotypy: any instance of repetitive, non-functional

vocalization that occurs for a duration of at least 10 seconds. Vocalizations are not directed

towards others and do not serve as functional communication. This includes humming, repetitive

sounds, and scripting lines he has heard from TV and movies.

Measurement System

Instructions: Record the frequency of each instance of vocal stereotypy according to the

corresponding phase:

● RIRD Phase: Record each instance of the behavior while the intervention is in place.

● Baseline and Withdrawal Phase: Record each instance of the behavior without applying

the intervention.

Session Baseline RIRD Baseline/ RIRD

1 30

2 40

3 20

4 40

5 40

6 100

7 100

8 85

9 90

10 80

11 50

12 40

13 50

14 40

15 50

16 60

17 70

18 70

19 80

Interobserver Agreement

The accuracy and reliability of the measurement system will be assessed in 20% of all

sessions. Data will be collected during scheduled observation sessions and IOA data will be

taken for 30% of sessions. A secondary observer will independently record data during the same
SIGNATURE ASSESSMENT FINAL PROJECT 4

sessions to assess reliability. Total Count IOA will be used and agreement between observers

will be considered when both record the same number of instances of vocal stereotypy within the

same interval. An agreement level of 80% or higher will be considered acceptable for ensuring

reliability and consistency in the measurement system.

Experimental Design

A reversal design (ABAB) is most appropriate for demonstrating a functional relation

between the implementation of response interruption and redirection (RIRD) and the reduction of

Marco’s vocal stereotypy. By alternating between baseline and intervention phases, you can

clearly see if the intervention systematically reduces vocal stereotypy. I would implement the

RIRD procedure and measure its effect on the frequency of vocal stereotypy. If the behavior

decreases, this would indicate a potential effect of the intervention. I would then withdraw the

intervention and observe whether the frequency of vocal stereotypy returns to baseline levels.

Replication of the effect confirms experimental control and strengthens the evidence of a

functional relation. My goal is to incorporate all levels of scientific understanding which is

description, prediction, and control.

Results
SIGNATURE ASSESSMENT FINAL PROJECT 5

Figure 1
Rate of Vocal Stereotypy Across Activity Choice and Noncontingent Escape Interventions

During the initial baseline, vocal stereotypy starts at a moderate level and shows some

variability, ranging from approximately 25 to 35. This indicates that, without intervention, the

behavior occurs consistently.

Upon introducing the Response Interruption and Redirection (RIRD) intervention, there is a

notable decrease in vocal stereotypy. The behavior drops significantly. Eventually reaches its
SIGNATURE ASSESSMENT FINAL PROJECT 6

lowest level, around 75. This suggests that the intervention is effective in reducing vocal

stereotypy.

When the intervention is removed, the rate of vocal stereotypy begins to increase again,

with moderate fluctuations. The increase implies a return of the behavior when RIRD is no

longer in place, highlighting the intervention’s effectiveness. Upon reintroducing RIRD, the rate

of vocal stereotypy decreases again, though not as sharply as the first intervention phase. This

suggests that the intervention continues to be effective, though perhaps external factors or

learning history could influence the rate of reduction.

Overall, the data demonstrates a clear functional relationship between the implementation

of RIRD and the reduction of vocal stereotypy. The repeated decrease in behavior following the

reintroduction of the intervention supports its effectiveness. Additionally, the increase in

behavior withdrawal phases strengthens the evidence for a functional relationship.

Scenario 2

Experimental Question
SIGNATURE ASSESSMENT FINAL PROJECT 7

What is the comparative effectiveness of activity choice versus noncontingent escape in

reducing aggression during instructional periods for Hanna, a 27-year old with a traumatic brain

injury, as measured across separate treatment environments?

Independent Variable

In this scenario, activity choice and noncontingent escape are the independent variables.

Dependent Variable

Behavior: Aggression

Operational Definition: any instance of forceful contact that is directed towards another

person. The contact must be strong enough to produce a visible impact, sound or reaction, such

as an object moving or a person recoiling. Examples include slapping, punching, and kicking.

Non-examples include yelling, shouting, or verbal contacts without any physical contact or

threat. Bumping into someone, light taps, friendly high fives, or gentle pats with no visible

physical impact also count as non-examples.

Measurement System

Instructions: Record each instance of the target behavior, in the corresponding phase, and

calculate the behavior rate based on the total observation time of the session.

Activity Choice: an intervention strategy that provides individuals with the opportunity to choose

between two or more activities.

Noncontingent Escape: an antecedent intervention, where access to escape from a demand or

task is provided on a fixed-time schedule regardless of the individuals behavior.

Session Activity Choice Noncontingent Escape

1 4.5 12
SIGNATURE ASSESSMENT FINAL PROJECT 8

2 3 11

3 5 12

4 1.5 11.5

5 2.3 13

6 2.6 11.5

7 3.3 11

8 3.5 12

9 5 9

10 5.5 11

11 3 12

12 2 9

13 2 9.5

14 2 9

15 2.4 7

16 3 8

17 1 9

18 2 6

19 2.5 7

Interobserver Agreement

The accuracy and reliability of the measurement system will be assessed in 20% of all

sessions. Data will be collected during scheduled observation sessions and IOA data will be

taken for 30% of sessions. A secondary observer will independently record data during the same

sessions to assess reliability. Total Count IOA will be used and agreement between observers

will be considered when both record the same number of instances of aggression within the same
SIGNATURE ASSESSMENT FINAL PROJECT 9

interval. An agreement level of 80% or higher will be considered acceptable for ensuring

reliability and consistency in the measurement system.

Experimental Design

An alternating treatments design (ATD) is essential for evaluating the effectiveness of

the two antecedent-based interventions, activity choice vs. noncontingent escape, in reducing

Hanna’s aggression. This design is appropriate because ATD allows for the simultaneous and

continuous evaluation of multiple interventions without requiring a withdrawal phase. This is

important because it is unethical to revert to a condition that could result in high levels of

aggression. Also, conducting each intervention in distinct environments ensures Hanna can

easily distinguish between the two conditions, which helps to minimize confusion and promote

consistent behavior under each intervention. The sessions alternate between activity choice and

noncontingent escape and aggression levels during each session are recorded and compared

across conditions. Each intervention is conducted multiple times across days or weeks to control

for confounding and extraneous variables such as time of day, fatigue, or other environmental

factors. If one intervention consistently results in lower aggression levels compared to the other,

this demonstrates a functional relationship between that intervention and the reduction in

aggression.

Results
SIGNATURE ASSESSMENT FINAL PROJECT 10

Figure 2

Rate of Aggression Across Alternating Treatments: Activity Choice vs. Noncontingent Escape

The blue line representing Activity Choice starts at a low frequency of behavior, around 3

instances per session. There is a slight increase early on, peeking around session 5. From

sessions 6 to 10, there is a gradual rise, reaching a high point at session 10. However, after

session 10, the frequency of behavior steadily decreases, maintaining relatively low and stable

levels between sessions 12 and 20. This trend suggests that the Activity Choice intervention may

help reduce the targeted behavior over time, particularly after an initial adjustment period.

The red line shows a higher frequency, beginning with 12 instances per session. The data

remains relatively stable with slight fluctuations until session 10, after which a gradual decline

begins. By session 15, the frequency noticeable decreases, reaching around 7 instances and

stabilizing around that level for the remainder of the sessions. This suggests that the Non-
SIGNATURE ASSESSMENT FINAL PROJECT 11

Contingent Escape intervention also effectively reduces the target behavior but starts from a

higher baseline and shows a gradual decline.

Initially, the Non-Contingent Escape condition is associated with higher rates of the

target behavior than Activity Choice. Both interventions show a decreasing trend over time,

indicating potential effectiveness in reducing behavior. The reduction appears more gradual for

non-contingent escape, whereas Activity Choice shows quicker stabilization of lower behavior

rates after Session 10.

Both interventions appear effective in decreasing the frequency of the target behavior.

However, Activity Choice may result in quicker behavior reduction and stabilization, while

Noncontingent Escape requires more time to show noticeable effects but still demonstrates a

downward trend. Further analysis would help determine the maintenance of each intervention's

impact.
SIGNATURE ASSESSMENT FINAL PROJECT 12
SIGNATURE ASSESSMENT FINAL PROJECT 13