When we know we can introduce the intervention and then the next one, how to notice there is a steady state of responding, Or it is not necessary to wait for this to introduce the treatment?
It depends. Are you trying to establish experimental control or are you just trying to solve a problem? If the former then you wait until you can predict the next data points with reasonable accuracy. If the latter then you be a bit looser with your criteria.
I actually love it! he explains an entire course i am in and it all makes so much sense the way he says it...I sometimes watch the video and stop to take notes on my notes...but its short so its not annoying! :) Love this channel! just found it and its omg amazing!
Do the baselines start at the same time and the interventions are staggered or can you start with one single baseline, (say, for nose picking), then implement that intervention. Once you start to see change, you don't stop the nose picking intervention you keep it going, but then you start taking baseline data for head scratching? And then add that intervention along with nose picking...? Or are you supposed to start all three baselines at the same time (as it appears on the graphs that Brad won't let you explain)
The logic comes from starting the baselines at exactly the same time. It allows you to systematically compare observed changes to the still running baseline. Without being matched then you lose the ability to rule many confounds - ruining the logic of the design and putting it in the realm of an AB design.
Not really. Imagine if your intervention was an antecedent intervention that was designed to target three behaviors concurrently. Remember, this is simply a tool to assess the effect of an intervention. Especially when that intervention produces permanent change or it’s unethical to reverse/withdraw.
!["ซี - เอมี่ " ย้อนความรัก 19 ปี ที่ต้องทนกันและกัน... | แฉ 22 ต.ค. 67 [2/3] | GMM25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ykv9ILzatHM/mqdefault.jpg)
![งมหอย จับปลา มือเปล่า หาอยู่หากินแบบวีถีอีสานกับแก๊งเซียนหรั่ง ม่วนคัก! [ขอนแก่น] @Sianstudio](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JEJZg6N-AbU/mqdefault.jpg)
When we know we can introduce the intervention and then the next one, how to notice there is a steady state of responding, Or it is not necessary to wait for this to introduce the treatment?
It depends. Are you trying to establish experimental control or are you just trying to solve a problem?
If the former then you wait until you can predict the next data points with reasonable accuracy. If the latter then you be a bit looser with your criteria.
Small suggestion - slow down; you talk really fast and it's difficult to keep up and process what you're saying.
I actually love it! he explains an entire course i am in and it all makes so much sense the way he says it...I sometimes watch the video and stop to take notes on my notes...but its short so its not annoying! :) Love this channel! just found it and its omg amazing!
Thank you. Please see the video on this topic.
Talking Quickly th-cam.com/video/7GLaYJifMBw/w-d-xo.html
Slower than this?! This was the longest video for a term ever created on psychcore!! Correct me if I'm wrong Ryan!
Do the baselines start at the same time and the interventions are staggered or can you start with one single baseline, (say, for nose picking), then implement that intervention. Once you start to see change, you don't stop the nose picking intervention you keep it going, but then you start taking baseline data for head scratching? And then add that intervention along with nose picking...? Or are you supposed to start all three baselines at the same time (as it appears on the graphs that Brad won't let you explain)
The logic comes from starting the baselines at exactly the same time. It allows you to systematically compare observed changes to the still running baseline. Without being matched then you lose the ability to rule many confounds - ruining the logic of the design and putting it in the realm of an AB design.
Does it matter if the behavior have different functions?
Not really. Imagine if your intervention was an antecedent intervention that was designed to target three behaviors concurrently.
Remember, this is simply a tool to assess the effect of an intervention. Especially when that intervention produces permanent change or it’s unethical to reverse/withdraw.
👌👌👌👌👌
Oh Brad....LOL
+ExpiredyourFace what? Just keeping him honest!