Abstract
Important findings are often a balance between the rigor of the experimental design and innovativeness of the experimental question. One broad topic area that has received a great deal of discussion, but little empirical study, is the evaluation of educational systems. Experimental designs that permit the analysis of practices used by state education agencies, local education agencies, and schools have the potential for yielding socially significant findings that could improve education. In this article we discuss the use of nonconcurrent multiple baseline designs as an option for studying the activities and effects of educational programs. Nonconcurrent multiple baseline designs stagger the timing of baseline-to-intervention changes across various entities, but the baselines and intervention phases are not contemporaneous across each of the tiers. Although considered less rigorous than concurrent multiple baseline designs, nonconcurrent designs have a degree of flexibility that may allow for their use in studying complex social contexts, such as educational settings, that might otherwise go unanalyzed.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1 ,91–97.
Barlow, D. H., & Hersen, M. (1984). Single case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change (2nd ed.). New York: Pergamon.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Horner, R. D., & Baer, D. M. (1978). Multiple-probe technique: A variation on the multiple baseline. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11 ,189–196.
Kazdin, A. E., & Kopel, S. A. (1975). On resolving ambiguities in the multiple-baseline design: Problems and recommendations. Behavior Therapy, 6 ,601–608.
Kennedy, C. H. (in press). Single-case designs for educational research.Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Kennedy, C. H., & Itkonen, T. (1994). Some effects of regular class participation on the social contacts and social networks of high school students with severe disabilities. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19 ,1–10.
Lipsey, M. W., & Cordray, D. S. (2000). Evaluation methods for social intervention. Annual Review of Psychology, 51 ,345–375.
Reid, R. (1997). Reforming educational reform. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7 ,1–12.
Repp, A. C. (1996). Contingencies: Baseball strikes, post offices, education, and finches' beaks-Who evolves? Who survives. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6 ,1–6.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (in press). Encyclopedia of behavior modification and cognitive behavior therapy: Educational applications.San Francisco: Sage.
Watson, P. J., & Workman, E. A. (1981). The non-concurrent multiple baseline across-individuals design: An extension of the traditional multiple baseline design. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 12 ,257–259.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Harvey, M.T., May, M.E. & Kennedy, C.H. Nonconcurrent Multiple Baseline Designs and the Evaluation of Educational Systems. Journal of Behavioral Education 13, 267–276 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOBE.0000044735.51022.5d
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOBE.0000044735.51022.5d