In the interests of time, a basic A-B design was implemented for the study. The A-B design is the simplest format allowing a planned comparison between the baseline period and the intervention period of a research investigation. This allows for logical inferences to be made regarding changes in the target behavior. These types of inferences cannot be made with case study designs. Since the target behavior was not an immediate concern or threat to the subject, there was sufficient time for baseline data to be collected.

With single-subject designs, there is ambiguity about the direction of causal inference. However, these designs can be used to examine outlier cases, and are a good way of testing promising interventions before using group experimental designs. After actually employing a single-subject design, I have come to realize the many similarities these designs have to social work practice, and their potential benefits. These designs are highly flexible, and can be adapted to respond to the needs of the particular case rather than being fixed. In the real world of social work practice there are often unexpected changes, and this flexibility of design is desirable. This flexibility also allows the researcher to avoid some of the ethical problems sometimes associated with rigid experimental designs. A baseline phase may be shortened or withheld altogether if the subject requires immediate intervention. This would normally ruin an experimental design. Also, the participants are generally more actively involved in setting the goals and targets of interventions. In this way, the findings have more direct and immediate impact on interventions at the individual case level. These types of designs are also much less costly. This makes single-subject designs an efficient and feasible way for clinicians to evaluate their practice methods frequently.

of these environmental external events which actually control the occurrence of the self-reinforced behavior (Nelson, Hayes, Spong, Jarrett & McKnight, 1983). This cuing view considers self-reinforcement to be effective because of its stimulus properties rather than its motivational properties. The main difference between self- and externally-administered consequences is considered to be temporal. External consequences determine response frequency in both cases, but external reinforcement is only recognized if the consequences are swiftly apparent; if the consequences are postponed, intermediate cues may be mislabeled as self-reinforcement. In a study conducted by Nelson, Hayes, Spong, Jarrett and McKnight (1983), a cuing interpretation of self-reinforcement for exercise behavior was supported. Conversely, a study conducted by Tichenor (1977) found no differential effects between self-administered versus experimenter-administ

Some topics in this essay:
Rosenfarb Zettle, METHOD Procedure, Jarrett McKnight, Ziesat Rosenthal, Greiner Karoly, Van Zoost, INTRODUCTION Self-control, Hefferman Richards, Johnson White, JANE DOE, response frequency, intervention phase, study conducted, van zoost 1972, greiner karoly 1976, hayes spong, van zoost, jarrett mcknight, spong jarrett, jackson van zoost, mcknight 1983, wulfert rosenfarb zettle, karoly 1976, rosenfarb zettle 1986, tichenor 1977,