Chapter 1
Single-Case Research Methods:
An Overview
Iver H. Iversen
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
My experiments had indeed gone well.
I was getting data from a single rat that
were more orderly and reproducible than
the averages of large groups in mazes
and discrimination boxes, and a few
principles seemed to be covering a lot of
ground. (Skinner, 1979, p. 114)
Replication is the essence of believability.
(Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968, p. 95)
Single-case research methods refer to a vast collection
of procedures for conducting behavioral research with
individual subjects. Such methods are used in basic
research and for improving behavioral problems with
educational and therapeutic interventions. Analyses
and interpretations of data collected with research
methods for individual subjects have developed into
procedures that are considerably different from those
used in research with groups of subjects. In this chap-
ter, I provide an overview of designs, analyses, and
interpretations of research results and treatment out-
comes using single-case research methods.
Background and History
The case in single-case research methods essentially
refers to a unit of analysis for an individual, a few
people in a group, or a large group with varying
membership. Single-case research methods should
be contrasted with single-case studies that ordinarily
consist of anecdotal narrations of what happened to
a given person. No treatments or manipulations of
experimental variables take place in case studies.
I thank Dominik Guess and Wendon Henton for valuable comments on earlier versions of this chapter.
DOI: 10.1037/13937-001
APA Handbook of Behavior Analysis: Vol. 1. Methods and Principles, G. J. Madden (Editor-in-Chief)
Copyright © 2013 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.
Research Methods Using Single Subjects
The single-case research method involves repeated
measures of one individual’s behavior before, dur-
ing, and often after an experimental, educational,
or therapeutic intervention. Data are collected
repeatedly over several observation periods or ses-
sions in what is customarily called a time series. The
objective is to change a behavior to determine the
variables that control that behavior. When environ-
mental variables have been found that reliably
change behavior, the method can be used to control
behavior. The investigator, educator, or therapist
can make the behavior start and stop and change
frequency or duration at a specific time and place.
Therefore, single-case methods provide a tool for a
science of behavior at the level of the individual sub-
ject. When an educator or therapist can effectively
control the client’s behavior, then methods exist for
helping that client acquire new behavior or over-
come a problem with existing behavior. This ability
to help a client by using methods to control the cli-
ent’s behavior is exactly what often creates contro-
versy around the use of such methods. The methods
for controlling behavior and for helping the client
are the same, but the verbs control and help are not
synonymous. To control behavior means to be able
to change behavior reliably, and in this context con-
trol has a technical meaning originating from the
laboratory. The word control, however, also has
political and societal meanings related to authorita-
tive restrictions of behavior for the individual. The
intended helping function of an applied behavior
3
 Iver H. Iversen
science is the opposite—to establish enrichment and
expansion of the individual’s behavioral repertoire,
not to restrict it. This complex issue has lead to
­several considerations regarding the ethics involved
in helping a client. For example, Skinner (1978)
argued that a client who needs help to obtain essen-
tial goods for survival should have a right to acquire
a behavior that can provide the goods rather than
merely be provided the goods regardless of any
behavior. Similarly, Van Houten et al. (1988)
stated that
individuals who are recipients . . . of
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
treatment designed to change their
behavior have the right to a therapeutic
environment, services whose overriding
goal is personal welfare, treatment by a
competent behavior analyst, programs
that teach functional skills, behavioral
assessment and ongoing evaluation, and
the most effective treatment procedures
available. (p. 381)
Because of the overall success of single-case
research methods, a plethora of articles, book chap-
ters, and entire books devoted to the topic have
appeared over the past 40 years. Recent publications
in this vast literature illustrate the wide use of
single-case research methods: Specific topics are
basic methodology (Barlow, Nock, & Hersen, 2009;
J. M. Johnston & Pennypacker, 2009), educational
research (Kennedy, 2005; Sulzer-Azaroff & Mayer,
1991), health sciences (Morgan & Morgan, 2009),
clinical and applied settings (Kazdin, 2011), com-
munity settings (O’Neill, McDonnell, Billingsly, &
Jenson, 2010), and medicine (Janosky, Leininger,
Hoerger, & Libkuman, 2009).
The term single-case research methods is synony-
mous with a variety of related terms, the most com-
mon of which are single-subject designs and N = 1
designs. The last term should be avoided because it
is misleading. N = 1 obviously means the use of
only one subject. However, N has an entirely differ-
ent meaning in statistics, where it stands for the
number of data points collected, not for the number
of subjects. In customary group research, each
­subject contributes exactly one data point. In con-
trast, single-case research methods generate a high
4
number of data points for each individual because of
the repeated observations of that individual’s behav-
ior. Therefore, it is incorrect and misleading to refer
to the single-case research method as an N = 1
design, falsely implying that only one data point has
been collected and that the researcher is trying to
promote a finding based on a single data point.
Glimpses Into the History of
Single-Case Research Methods
I. P. Pavlov’s (1927) Conditioned Reflexes had a
major influence on B. F. Skinner’s decision to study
psychology and on his choice of research methodol-
ogy (Catania & Laties, 1999; Iversen, 1992; Skinner,
1966). Skinner was impressed with Pavlov’s precise,
quantitative measures of behavior in one organism
at a time. Thus, Skinner (1956) once wrote, “I had
the clue from Pavlov: Control your conditions and
you will see order” (p. 223). Pavlov described in
great detail control conditions and recording of indi-
vidual drops of saliva at a given time of day for a
­single animal. Figure 1.1 shows an early version of a
single-case research method used by Pavlov (1928).
The dog, Krasavets, had previously been condi-
tioned to a positive tone (positive stimulus, or S+)
with food powder. Over nine trials, Pavlov alter-
nated the S+ with a negative tone (negative stimu-
lus, or S−) that had not been conditioned to
food. The S+ elicited several drops of saliva from
two glands, and the S− elicited no saliva. The
Figure 1.1.  Illustration of an early single-case
research method. Detailed data for a single dog
from Pavlov’s experiments on classical conditioning.
Positive tone is followed by food; negative tone is not.
From Lectures on Conditioned Reflexes: Twenty-Five
Years of Objective Study of the Higher Nervous Activity
(Behaviour) of Animals (Vol. 1, p. 173), by I. P. Pavlov,
1928, New York, NY: International Publishers. In the
public domain.

a­ lternation was irregular by design so that Pavlov
could examine what happened to the conditioned
reflex to S+ after several presentations of S−;
indeed, the elicitation was reduced, as can be seen
for S+ at 2:32. Thus, at the level of the individual
dog, Pavlov first demonstrated a baseline of reliable
elicitation of saliva to S+ and then demonstrated
that repeated, successive presentations of S− inhib-
ited the flow of saliva on the next presentation
of S+.
Pavlov’s work in Russia and contemporary work
in Europe by Wundt on perception and by Weber
and Fechner on psychophysics grew from physiol-
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
ogy, in which the customary method was to investi-
gate the effects of independent variables on individual
organisms (Boring, 1929). In Europe, Ebbinghaus
(1885/1913) became famous for his memory studies
using a single subject (himself). In the United States,
Thorndike’s (1911) research on the law of effect
with individual cats quickly became well-known
(Boakes, 1984). Apparently, Thorndike was ahead of
Pavlov by a few years. Thus, Pavlov (1928) wrote,
Some years after the beginning of the
work with our new method I learned
that somewhat similar experiments on
animals had been performed in America,
and indeed not by physiologists but by
psychologists. Thereupon I studied in
more detail the American publications,
and now I must acknowledge that the
honour of having made the first steps
along this path belongs to E. L. Thorn-
dike. By two or three years his experi-
ments preceded ours. (pp. 39–40)
Pavlov’s work apparently did not appear in English
until a paper in Science (Pavlov, 1906) and the
translation of Conditioned Reflexes (Pavlov, 1927),
long after Thorndike had finished his early animal
research. In addition, Jacque Loeb, educated in the
German tradition of physiology of individual ani-
mals (e.g., Loeb, 1900), had a major influence on
Pavlov, Thorndike, Watson, and Skinner (Greens-
pan & Baars, 2005).
At the risk of digressing too far into the his-
tory of psychology, I cannot help mentioning the
work of the French physiologist Claude Bernard
Single-Case Research Methods
(1865/1957). Nearly 150 years ago, and long before
Loeb, Pavlov, Thorndike, Watson, and Skinner, he
articulated in clear terms the need for what he called
comparative experiments with individual, intact ani-
mals. When using several animals for comparison,
he realized that the errors in his data stemmed from
variations from animal to animal, and he wrote that
“to remove this source of error, I was forced to
make the whole experiment on the same animal . . .
because in this respect two frogs are not always
comparable” (p. 183). Bernard’s work appeared in
Russian, and his work had a major influence on
­Russian physiologists while Pavlov was a young
researcher. Of particular historical significance, Pav-
lov’s main professor, Botkin, had been a student of
Bernard’s (see Paré, 1990), and Pavlov expressed the
greatest admiration for Bernard’s experimental
approaches (Todes, 2002). Indeed, according to
Wood (2004), Pavlov was an apostle of Bernard’s.
As for single-case methods with humans, Watson
and Rayner (1920) and Jones (1924) demonstrated
conditioning and extinction of fear reactions in
infants (i.e., “little Albert” and “little Peter”). The
methods were crude, and the data were qualitative
descriptions with scant operational definitions.
However, multiple training conditions, repetition of
test conditions, and tests for transfer made these
studies influential in psychology (Harris, 1979).
Thorndike (1927) reported an impressive laboratory
study with adults that serves as a very early model of
the A-B-A design (see below). Subjects received
instructions such as “Draw an x-inch line,” where x
was 3, 4, 5, or 6. Such instructions were presented
in random order, and, being blindfolded, the sub-
jects never saw what they drew. The consequence,
or effect, of drawing was the experimenter saying
either “right” or “wrong.” Each subject had one
early session with no effect delivered, then seven
training sessions with an effect, and then one more
late session without an effect. Figure 1.2 shows
average data for all subjects and individual data for
two subjects. All subjects improved accuracy of line
drawing during training but dropped in accuracy
when the effect was removed in the late test; 16 of
24 subjects had a gain compared with their scores
in the early test (e. g., Subject 29), whereas eight
subjects had no gain and instead a drop (e.g.,
5
 Iver H. Iversen
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
Figure 1.2.  Example of a historically early A-B-A
design for all subjects (top) and for two subjects
(middle and bottom). Twenty-four blindfolded human
subjects drew lines. Percentage correct expresses how
many lines were drawn within criterion length (3, 4, 5
or 6 inches). In early and late tests (Thorndike’s terms),
no consequence was presented to the subjects, whereas
during training subjects were presented with the experi-
menter’s saying “right” or “wrong” depending on their
performance. Data from Thorndike (1927).
6
S­ ubject 42) compared with the early test. Thorndike
concluded that the effect was responsible for the
gain in line-drawing accuracy. In the area of motor
learning and control, this experiment is considered
a classic method for demonstration of the effects
of feedback on performance and learning (e.g.,
Schmidt & Lee, 2005).
With the advent of Skinner’s (1938) rigorous
experimental methods featuring operationally
defined measures of behavior and highly controlled
conditions for individual animal subjects, single-
case research methods developed rapidly and laid
the foundation for successful application to humans,
which began around the 1950s. For examples of
early behavior research and therapy using humans
(i.e., 1950–1965), see the collections of articles in
Eysenck (1960) and Ullman and Krasner (1965). In
addition, Wolpe (1958) developed single-case meth-
ods for treatment of phobias in humans.
The methods of behavior analysis for individual
subjects were laid out clearly in influential texts by
Keller and Schoenfeld (1950), Skinner (1953), and
Bijou and Baer (1961). The Journal of the Experimen-
tal Analysis of Behavior was founded in 1958 and
published experiments based on single-case meth-
odology using both human and nonhuman subjects.
When the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
appeared in 1968, single-case research methods
were further established as important research tools
that were not for animals only. For a more thorough
history of behavior analysis and single-case research
methods, see Barlow et al. (2009), Kazdin (2011),
and Blampied (1999).
Scientific Method
One important method, namely that of comparing
collected data from at least two different conditions,
is common across different research disciplines.
Reaching this point has not come easy. The history
of science is full of anecdotes that illustrate the
struggle a particular scientist had in convincing con-
temporary scholars of new findings. Boorstin (1983)
related how Galileo had to go through painstaking
steps of comparing different conditions to demon-
strate that through his telescope one could in fact
see how things at a great distance looked. In about
1650, Galileo first aimed the telescope at buildings

and other earthly objects and then made a drawing
of what he saw. Then he walked to the location seen
in the telescope and made a drawing of what he saw
there. He compared such drawings over and over to
demonstrate that the telescope worked. Using this
method, Galileo could prepare his audience for an
important inductive step. When the telescope was
aimed at objects in the sky, the drawing made of
what one saw through the telescope would reflect
the structure of what existed at the faraway location.
As is well-known from the history of science, many
of Galileo’s contemporaries said that what they saw
in the telescope was inside the telescope and not far
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
away. Yet, his method of repeated comparisons of
different viewing conditions was an important step
in convincing at least some scientists of his time that
a telescope was an instrument that could be used to
view distant, unreachable objects. In a review of the
history of experimental control, Boring (1954) gave
a related example of how Pascal in 1648 tested
whether a new instrument could measure baromet-
ric pressure. When a glass tube closed at one end
was filled with mercury and then inverted with the
open end immersed in a cup of mercury, a vacuum
would form at the closed end of the tube. Pascal had
the idea that the weight of air pressing on the mer-
cury in the open cup influenced the height of the
column of mercury. Hence, the length of the vac-
uum at the top of the tube should change at a higher
altitude, where the weight of air was supposedly less
than on the ground. Pascal sent family members
with two such instruments made of glass tubes,
cups, and mercury to take the measurements. Read-
ings were first made for both instruments at the foot
of a mountain. Then one person stayed with one
instrument and took readings throughout the day.
Another person carried the second instrument up
the mountain and took measurements at different
locations; when back at the foot of the mountain,
measurements were taken again with both instruments.
Clearly, the essence of the method is the comparison
between one condition at the foot of the mountain,
the control condition, and the elevated conditions.
Because the control readings stayed the same
throughout the day, whereas the elevated condition
readings changed, proof existed that the instrument
worked as intended. This experiment was a real-life
Single-Case Research Methods
demonstration by Pascal of a scientific principle as
well as of a method of testing.
Although these anecdotes are amusing several
hundred years later for their extreme and cumber-
some methods of testing, the practicing scientist of
today still on occasion faces opposition to conclu-
sions from experiments. Thus, behavior analysts
sometimes find themselves in a position in which it
is difficult to convince psychologists with different
training that changes in contingencies of reinforce-
ment can bring about large and robust behavior
changes. For example, I once presented to col-
leagues in different areas of psychology some data
that demonstrated very reliable and precise stimulus
control of behavior in rats. A colleague objected that
such mechanistic, on–off control of behavior is not
psychology. Others in the audience were suspicious
of the extremely low variability in the data, which
was believed to have come from an equipment error
and not from the method of controlling behavior.
The method of comparing two or more series
of readings with the same measurement instrument
under two or more different conditions is the
­hallmark of the scientific method (Boring, 1954).
Whether the research design is a between-groups
or a within-subject comparison of the effects of a
manipulation of a variable on behavior, the shared
element is always the comparisons of different con-
ditions using the same measurement (see also Baer,
1993).
Designs for Single-Case
Research Methods
A variety of designs have been developed for
research with animals and humans. Because this
chapter is an overview, I can only describe the most
common designs. Chapter 5 of this volume covers
designs in considerably more detail. Experimental
designs are specific to the problem the researcher
seeks to investigate. However, an experimental
design is also like an interface between the
researcher and the subject because information
passes in both directions. An essential aspect of
single-case research methods is the interaction
between subject and researcher, educator, or thera-
pist. Pavlov, Thorndike, and Skinner, as originators
7
 Iver H. Iversen
of the single-case method, modified their apparatus
and experimental procedures for individual animals
depending on how the animal reacted to the experi-
mental procedures (Skinner, 1956). The scientist
modifies the subject’s behavior by experimental
manipulations that, when reliable and replicable,
constitute the foodstuff of science; equally as
important for the process of discovery is the sub-
ject’s influence on the researcher’s behavior. Sidman
(1960) described how the researcher needs to “lis-
ten” to how the data change in accordance with
experimental manipulations. To discover laws of
behavior, the experimenter needs to adjust methods
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
depending on how they affect the subject’s behav-
ior. In basic research, the experimental situation is
often a dynamic exchange between researcher and
subject that may lead to novel discoveries and
designs. In applied behavior analysis, as successful
experiments and treatments are replicated over
time, designs tend to become relatively fixed and
standardized. The strength of standardization is a
high degree of internal validity and ease in commu-
nicating the design. However, the weakness of stan-
dardization is that researchers or therapists may
primarily investigate problems that fit the standard
designs (Sidman, 1981). Nonetheless, the standard
designs covered here serve as basic building blocks
in both basic research and application. My main
focus is the underlying logic of each of the covered
designs.
Figure 1.3.  A-B design using hypothetical data.
8
A-B Design
The essence of single-case research methods is the
comparison of repeated measures of the same behav-
ior for the same individual for at least two different
experimental, educational, or treatment conditions.
Figure 1.3 shows a schematic of an A-B design,
using hypothetical data. Phase A is repeated baseline
recording of behavior across several observation
periods (sessions) before any intervention takes
place. The intervention is a change in the individu-
al’s environment, also across several sessions, usu-
ally in the form of a change in how reinforcement is
provided contingent on behavior. The data in Phase
A serve as a comparison with behavior changes in
Phase B. However, the comparison is logically from
an extension of data from Phase A to Phase B. Data
in Phase A are used to forecast or predict what
would have happened during the next sessions had
the intervention in Phase B not been introduced. If
the data in Phase A are without trends and of low
variability and are taken across several sessions,
then the experienced researcher or therapist predicts
and assumes that this behavior will continue at that
level if no interruptions in the environment occur.
Thus, the dotted line in Phase B in Figure 1.3 indi-
cates the projected trend of the behavior from Phase
A to Phase B. The effect on behavior of introducing
the change in Phase B is thus evaluated against
the backdrop of the projected data from Phase A.
Because forecast behavior cannot be measured, the

difference between Phase A and Phase B data consti-
tutes the experimental effect, as indicated by the
bracket. The validity of the statement that the inter-
vention in Phase B caused the change in behavior
from A to B thus depends not only on the change of
behavior in Phase B but also on how good the pre-
diction is that the behavior would have remained
the same had the intervention not been introduced
in Phase B.
Ideally, the behavior should not change in Phase
B unless the intervention took place. The change
should not occur by chance. Because other changes
in the environment might take place at the same
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
time as the intervention is introduced, the researcher
or therapist can never be sure whether the interven-
tion or some other factor produces the behavior
change. Such unintended factors are customarily
called confounding variables. For example, a child
may have an undesirable low rate of smiling in the
baseline phase (A). Then when social reinforcement
is explicitly made contingent on smiling in the inter-
vention phase (B), the rate of smiling may increase
above that in the baseline (A). If the sessions stretch
out over several weeks, with one session each day,
then a host of other changes could happen at the
same time as the intervention. For example, a parent
could return from a trip away from home, the child
could recover from the flu, a bully in class may be
away for a few weeks, and so on. Such other factors
could have made the rate of smiling increase by
themselves or in addition to the effect of providing
social reinforcement for smiling. For additional con-
siderations regarding the role of confounding vari-
ables, see Kazdin (1973). Because of the potential
difficulty in controlling such confounding variables,
Figure 1.4.  A-B-A design: a cumulative record of lever pressing by a single rat. A = baseline with
response-independent reinforcement. B = continuous reinforcement; each lever press produced reinforce-
ment. Second A = extinction. Data from Iversen (2010).
Single-Case Research Methods
the A-B design by itself is uncommon in clinical and
educational situations. However, the A-B design is
very common in laboratory demonstrations, espe-
cially with animal subjects, where confounding vari-
ables can be controlled experimentally.
A-B-A Design
To demonstrate clear experimental control while
reducing the potential influence of confounding
variables, the experimenter can supplement the A-B
design with a withdrawal of the change in Phase B
and a return to the conditions of Phase A, as a back-
to-baseline control. This design is therefore often
called a withdrawal design. When the baseline mea-
sured in the first Phase A can be recovered in the
second Phase A, after the intervention has changed
the behavior in Phase B, then the researcher has
shown control of behavior and demonstrated high
internal validity. The behavior is changed by the
intervention and changed back when the interven-
tion is removed. The researcher therefore has full
control over the behavior of the individual subject
or client, which means that the behavior can be
changed at the researcher’s or therapist’s discretion.
Figure 1.4 shows a cumulative record of lever press-
ing for a single rat during baseline, acquisition, and
extinction of lever pressing within one session. The
rapid increase in lever pressing when it produces
food contrasts with the very low rate of lever press-
ing during the baseline phase when lever pressing
did not produce food. The rapid decline in lever
pressing when reinforcement is withdrawn demon-
strates the control reinforcement had over the
behavior. The experienced investigator comes to
learn that when such clear control is obtained with
9
 Iver H. Iversen
one individual, then it will also be found with other,
similar individuals.
In clinical and educational applications, the
A-B-A design is useful to show that an intervention
is effective and that a given behavior change is under
the therapist’s control and not caused by other fac-
tors. However, a critical problem arises with this
design regarding clinical or educational significance
for the participant and for the caregivers. If the ther-
apist follows an A-B-A design and changes behavior
from a low level in Phase A to a high level in Phase B
and then back again to a low level in the second
Phase A to demonstrate control, in the end there
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
is no gain for the client or for the caregivers. The
educator or therapist can hardly convince the care-
givers that it is a great step forward to know that
the behavior can now be brought back to the same
level as when the participant came in for treatment.
The A-B-A design has shown gain in control of the
behavior but has produced no clinical or educational
gain. Therefore, the A-B-A design is not useful as a
stand-alone treatment in clinical or educational
situations.
A concern with the A-B-A design is that behavior
that changed in Phase B may not always show a
reversal back to the level seen in the first Phase A
when the intervention is withdrawn. For example,
for motor skill acquisition such as cycling or walk-
ing, the acquired behavior may not drop back to the
baseline level when reinforcement is removed in the
second Phase A. The individual has acquired a new
skill in Phase B that may lead to new contingent
reinforcers that were not within reach before the
skill was acquired.
When behavior does not return to baseline level
after the intervention is removed, the possibility also
exists that the behavior change was produced by or
aided by a confounding variable and not by the
intervention. The educator and therapist therefore
face a dilemma. They want to help the client acquire
a new behavior that is lacking or to suppress an
existing unwanted behavior. They also want, how-
ever, to be able to communicate to other therapists
and educators that they have developed a method to
control the behavior of interest. To help the client,
they desire the behavior change in Phase B to remain
intact when the intervention is removed. To show
10
control over the behavior, they desire the behavior
change in Phase B to not remain intact when the
intervention is removed.
A-B-A-B Design
To resolve some of these difficulties, an additional
phase can be added to the A-B-A design in which the
intervention (B) is repeated, thereby forming an A-B-
A-B design, often called a reversal-replication design
or a double-replication design. Figure 1.5 (top) shows
an example (R. G. Fox, Copeland, Harris, Rieth, &
Hall, 1975) in which the number of math problems
completed by one eighth-grade underachieving stu-
dent changed when the teacher paid attention to her
when she worked on the assignments. The number
of problems completed shows a gradual and very
large change in the treatment condition. Then, when
the baseline was reinstated, the number dropped to
baseline levels only to increase again when the treat-
ment was reintroduced. Because the number of prob-
lems completed is high in both treatment (B) phases
and low in both baseline (A) phases, the data dem-
onstrate control by the intervention of reinforcing
completion of math problems in a single individual
child. This design satisfies both the need to demon-
strate control of behavior and the need to help the
client because the behavior is at the improved level
when the treatment ends after the last Phase B. This
off–on–off–on logic of the A-B-A-B design mimics
daily situations in which people determine whether
something works or not by turning it on and off a
few times. The A-B-A-B design shows that control of
behavior can be repeated for the same individual—
that is, intrasubject replication. This ability of the
researcher to replicate the behavioral change in a
single individual provides a tremendous source of
knowledge about the conditions that control behav-
ior. Such results are of practical significance for
teachers and family or caregivers because as Baer
et al. (1968) succinctly stated, “Replication is the
essence of believability” (p. 95).
The A-B-A-B design is customarily shown as a
time series with several sessions in each phase. The
underlying off–on–off–on logic also exists in other
procedures in which two conditions alternate sev-
eral times within a session, as in multiple sched-
ules (e.g., two or more schedules of reinforcement
 Single-Case Research Methods
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Figure 1.5.  Top: A-B-A-B design with follow-up (post checks). From “A Computerized System for Selecting
Responsive Teaching Studies, Catalogued Along Twenty-Eight Important Dimensions, by R. G. Fox, R. E.
Copeland, J. W. Harris, H. J. Rieth, and R. V. Hall, in E. Ramp and G. Semb (Eds.), Behavior Analysis: Areas of
Research and Application (p. 131), 1975, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Copyright 1975 by Prentice-Hall,
Inc. Reprinted with permission. Bottom: Illustration of a within-session repeated AB * N design. Event record
showing onset of discriminative stimulus, first pen; response, second pen; reinforcement, third pen. Data are for
one rat after discrimination training showing perfect discrimination performance. Data from Iversen (2010).

alternate after a few minutes, each under a separate
stimulus). Such A-B-A-B-A-B-A-B . . . or A-B * N
designs demonstrate powerful, repeated behavior
control. The A-B * N design can also be imple-
mented at the moment-to-moment level. Figure 1.5,
bottom, shows a sample of an event record in which
a rat promptly presses a lever each time a light turns
on and almost never presses it when the light is off.
The A-B * N design can itself serve as a baseline for
other designs. For example, this discrimination pro-
cedure can serve as a baseline for assessment of the
effects of other factors such as food deprivation,
stimulus factors, drugs, and so forth. The method of
repeated A-B * N changes within a session can also
serve as a baseline for comparison with the outcome
on occasional test trials in which a stimulus is
altered, such as, for example, in the determination
of stimulus generalization. With various modifica-
tions, the repeated A-B changes within a session also
form the basis of methods used in research and edu-
cation, such as the matching-to-sample procedure
(see Discrete-Trial Designs section, below).
Multiple-Baseline Designs
A popular expansion of the A-B design is the
multiple-baseline design. This design is used when
reversing the behavior back to the baseline level is
not desirable from an educational or therapeutic
perspective. After an undesirable behavior has been
changed to a desirable level, educators, therapists,

11
 Iver H. Iversen

and caregivers are reluctant to bring the behavior

back to its former undesirable level to prove that it
was the intervention that changed the behavior to
the acceptable level. Indeed, it may be considered
unethical to force the removal of a desirable behav-
ior acquired by a person with disability. With the
multiple-baseline design, the possible influence of
confounding variables is not assessed by withdraw-
ing the intervention condition as with the A-B-A and
A-B-A-B designs. Instead, data are compared with
simultaneously running baselines for other behav-
iors, situations, or individuals. The multiple-
baseline design probably had its formal origin in
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Baer et al. (1968). Multiple-baseline designs are not

ordinarily used with animal subjects because rever-
sals to baseline and replications are not undesirable
or unethical. Figure 1.6 illustrates with hypothetical
data the underlying logic of multiple-baseline
designs. Two children in the same environment
have the same behavioral deficit. In the top display,
the target behavior is recorded concurrently for
both children for several sessions as a baseline
before intervention. For Peter, the intervention
begins at Session 16 and continues for 10 sessions,
and the target behavior shows a clear increase com-
pared with baseline. For Allen, the behavior is still
recorded throughout the intervention phase for
Peter, but no intervention is scheduled for Allen.
However, Allen also shows a similar large increase
in the target behavior. Faced with such data, one
Figure 1.6.  Confounding variable in a multiple-­
would be forced to conclude either that the behav-
baseline design. Top two graphs: Allen’s baseline behav-
ior change for Peter may not have been the result of ior changes during the intervention for Peter, suggesting
the intervention but of other factors in the environ- the influence of a confounding variable during inter-
ment or that Allen imitated Peter’s new behavior vention. Bottom two graphs: Allen’s behavior does not
change during the intervention for Peter but changes
change. Such data never find their way to publica- when his intervention starts, suggesting control by the
tion because they do not demonstrate a clear effect intervention. Data are hypothetical.
of the intervention for him. The bottom display
shows, also with hypothetical data, the more r­ eplication of the treatment effect. The benefit of this
­customary published data pattern from such a design is that when faced with such data, the thera-
multiple-­baseline design across subjects. The pist or educator can fairly safely conclude that the
­baseline for Allen continues undisturbed, whereas intervention caused the behavior change. An addi-
Peter’s behavior changes during the intervention. tional benefit for the client is that no forced with-
When the same intervention is then also introduced drawal of treatment (return to baseline) occurs,
for Allen, his behavior shows an increase similar which would have ruined any educational or thera-
to that of Peter. The data show that the intended peutic gain for that client.
behavior change occurs only when the intervention Figure 1.7 shows an empirical example of teach-
is introduced. The data also show successful ing words to an 11-year-old boy with autism using a

12
 Single-Case Research Methods
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Figure 1.7.  Multiple-baseline design across behaviors for one child. From “Increasing
Spontaneous Language in Three Autistic Children,” by J. L. Matson, J. A. Sevin, D.
Fridley, and S. R. Love, 1990, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, p. 231. Copyright
1990 by the Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, Inc., Lawrence, KS.
Reprinted with permission.

multiple-baseline design across behaviors (Matson,
Sevin, Fridley, & Love, 1990). Baselines of three
words were recorded concurrently. Saying “please”
was taught first while the baseline was continued
for the other two target words. Saying “thank you”
was then taught while the baseline was continued
for the last target word, which was the last to be
taught. The data show that teaching one word made
saying that word increase in frequency, whereas say-
ing the other words did not increase in frequency. In
addition, the data show that saying a given word
did not increase in frequency until teaching for that
particular word started. Thus, the data generated by
this design demonstrate clear control over the target
behaviors. In addition, the data show that the con-
trol was established by the teaching methods and
not by other confounding variables.
The logic of the multiple-baseline designs dic-
tates that the baselines run in parallel (concur-
rently). For example, with a multiple-baseline
design across ­subjects, one would not run the first
subject in January, the next subject in February, and
the third ­subject in March. The point of the design
is that the baseline for the second subject guards
against ­possible confounding variables that might
occur simultaneously with the introduction of the
intervention for the first subject; similarly, the base-
line for the third subject guards against possible
confounding variables associated with the introduc-
tion of the intervention for the first and second
subjects.
The multiple-baseline design offers several levels
of comparison of effects and no effects of the inter-
vention (Iversen, 2012). Figure 1.8 illustrates, with
hypothetical data, the many comparisons that can be
made in multiple-baseline designs, in this case a
multiple-baseline design across subjects. For exam-
ple, with four clients, the baselines of the same
behavior are recorded concurrently for all clients,
and the intervention is introduced successively
across clients. Each client’s baseline serves as a
comparison for the effect of the intervention on that
client (as indicated with dotted arrows at A, B, C,
and D). The intervention phase for one client is
compared with the baseline for the next client
(­reading from the top of the chart) to determine
whether possible confounding variables might pro-
duce concomitant changes in the behavior of other

13
 Iver H. Iversen
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Figure 1.8.  Logic of the multiple-baseline across-subjects design.

A, B, C, and D arrows refer to change in behavior during the inter-
vention compared with the baseline for each individual; a, b, c, d, e,
and f arrows refer to the absence of a change for one individual when
the intervention has an effect at the same time for another individual.
Data are hypothetical.

clients when the behavior is made to change for the
previous client. Thus, the dotted lines (marked a, b,
c, d, e, and f ) indicate the possible assessments of
effects of confounding variables. In this hypothetical
example, there are four demonstrations of an inter-
vention effect because the behavior score increases
each time the intervention is introduced. In addi-
tion, there are six demonstrations of the absence of
the possible effect of confounding variables because
the behavior score does not change for one client
when the intervention takes effect for another client.
Ideally, to provide maximal internal validity, the
intervention should produce a change in behavior
for the client for whom the intervention takes place

14
 Single-Case Research Methods

and should have no effect on the behavior of the
other clients. Notice that the data for the client in
the bottom display provides the most information,
with a change when the intervention takes place for
that client and three comparisons during the base-
line to introduction of interventions for the other
clients but without any change on the baseline for
the last client.
Baer (1975) noted that multiple-baseline designs
offer an opportunity for systematic replication
(across subjects, responses, or situations) but does
not offer an opportunity for direct replication for the
same subject, response, or situation (i.e., there is no
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
a two-way interaction between experimenter and
subject and therapist and client, respectively.
Gradual or Sudden Changes in A-B, A-B-A,
A-B-A-B, and Multiple-Baseline Designs
The literature review for this chapter revealed that
two distinctly different patterns of behavior change
appear to be associated with the A-B, A-B-A, A-B-A-B,
and multiple-baseline designs. Figure 1.9 exemplifies
this issue for the A-B-A-B design using hypothetical
data so as not to highlight or critique specific stud-
ies. In the top graph, the behavior change is a grad-
ual increase in the B phase and a gradual decrease in

return to baseline or subsequent return to interven- the second A phase with a return to baseline condi-
tion). In essence, the technique is repeated, but tions, and the last B phase also shows a gradual
­control over behavior is not. Thus, an essential com- increase in the behavior, as in the first B phase. In
ponent of functional behavior analysis is lost with the bottom graph, the behavior in the first B phase
the multiple-baseline design, yet the technique is shifts up abruptly as soon as the intervention takes
well suited for applied behavior analysis. Successful,
systematic replications of procedures across behav-
iors, subjects, and situations and across laboratories,
classrooms, and clinics over time offer important
evidence that the designs are indeed responsible for
the behavior changes.
In general, multiple-baseline designs are con-
ducted across behaviors or situations for the same
individual or across individuals (with the same
behavior measured for all individuals). The designs
have also been used for groups of individuals. Multiple-
baseline designs are appealing to educators and
therapists and have become so popular that they are
often presented in textbooks as the golden example
of modern behavior analysis tools. However, these
designs do not quite live up to the original formula-
tion of single-case research methods’ being an inter-
action between the investigator and the subject. The
investigator should be able to change the procedure
as needed depending on how the subject’s behavior
changes as a function of the investigator’s experi-
mental manipulations. To be successful, applied
behavior analysis should guard against becoming a
discipline in which participants are pushed through
a rigid protocol with a predetermined number of Figure 1.9.  Two different patterns of data in A-B-A-B
sessions and fixed set of conditions regardless of designs. The top display shows an example of gradual
how their behavior changes. In a recent interview, acquisition in both B phases and gradual extinction in
the second A phase. The bottom display shows abrupt
Sidman (as cited in Holth, 2010) pointed out that to changes in the B phases and in return to the A phase.
be effective, both basic and applied research requires Data are hypothetical.

15
 Iver H. Iversen

place, stays at the same level, and then just as evaluate the frequency and root of the different
abruptly shifts down to the same level as in the first behavior patterns in these designs.
A phase with a similar abrupt shift up in the last B
phase. With animals, data customarily look as illus-
Alternating-Treatments or
trated in the top graph, because phase B is usually
Multielement Designs
contingent reinforcement and the change in Phase B
A variant of the A-B-A-B design is a more random
can be considered behavior acquisition. Similarly,
alternation of two or more components of interven-
when reinforcement is removed in the second A
tion or conditions for research. For example, the
phase, behavior will ordinarily extinguish gradually
effects of three doses of a drug on a behavioral
across sessions. In studies with humans, however,
­baseline of operant conditioning for an individual
both of these data patterns appear in the literature,
may be compared across sessions with the dose
often without comment or clarification. When data
selected randomly for each session. Thus, a possible
show a large, abrupt change in the very first session
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

sequence of conditions might be B-A-A-C-B-C-C-A-

of intervention and an equally large and abrupt
change back to baseline in the first session of with-
drawal, the participant either made contact with the
changed reinforcement contingency immediately or
responded immediately to an instruction regarding
the change, such as “From now on you have to do x
to earn the reinforcer” or “From now on you will no
longer earn the reinforcer when you do x.” Thus, the
two different behavior patterns observed in the A-B-
A-B design with human clients, gradual versus
abrupt changes, could conceivably reflect whether
the behavior was under control by contingencies of
reinforcement or by discriminative stimuli (instruc-
tion). Skinner (1969) drew a distinction between
contingency-shaped behavior and rule-governed
behavior. Behavior that is rule governed already
exists in the individual’s repertoire and is therefore
switched on and off by the instructions, and the
experiment or treatment becomes an exercise
in stimulus control, or rule following. However,
­contingency-shaped behavior may not exist before
an intervention intended to control the behavior,
and the experiment or treatment becomes a demon-
stration or study of acquisition. Thus, with human
participants, two fundamentally different behavioral
processes may underlie the different patterns of
behavior seen with the use of the A-B-A-B design
(and also with the A-B, A-B-A, and multiple-baseline
designs). Unfortunately, authors do not always
explain the procedure carefully enough that one can
determine whether the participant was instructed
about changes in procedure when a new phase was
initiated (see also Kazdin, 1973). Perhaps future
­systematic examinations of existing literature can
B-A-C-B, and so on. This design allows for random
presentation of each condition and can assess
sequential effects in addition to determining the
effect of several levels of an independent variable.
The basic design has its origin in Sidman (1960)
under the label multielement manipulation and has
since been labeled multielement design or alternating
treatments. This design is somewhat similar to the
design used in functional assessment (see the sec-
tion Functional Assessment later in this chapter).
However, an important difference is that in func-
tional assessment, each condition involves assess-
ment of existing behavior under familiar conditions,
whereas with the alternating-treatments design, each
condition is an intervention seeking to change
behavior. Alternating-treatments designs are consid-
erably more complex than what can be covered here
(see, e.g., Barlow et al., 2009).
Changing-Criterion Designs
When a behavior needs to be changed drastically in
topography, duration, or frequency, an effective
approach is to change the criterion for reinforce-
ment in small steps. This approach is essentially the
method of shaping by successive approximation
(Cooper, Heron, & Heward, 2007). Concrete, mea-
surable criteria are applied in a stepwise fashion in
accordance with behavioral changes. Each step
serves as a baseline for comparison to the next step.
Withdrawals or reversals are rare because the goal is
to establish a drastic behavior change. The method
can be characterized as an A-B-C-D-E-F-G . . .
design, although it is rarely written that way. For

16

example, as a laboratory demonstration, the
­duration of lever holding by a rat may be increased
in small steps of first 200 milliseconds across ses-
sions, then 500 milliseconds, then 1 second, and so
forth. Eventually, the rat may steadily hold the lever
down for an extended period of time, say up to 10
seconds or longer if the final criterion is set at 10
seconds (e.g., Brenagan & Iversen, 2012). The changing-
criterion design may also be used in the form of
stimulus-shaping methods in educational research
in which stimuli are faded in or faded out or modi-
fied in topography. For example, the spoken word
house is taught when a stimulus, say a schematic of
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
a house, is presented to a child. Over time the sche-
matic is modified in many small steps into the
printed word HOUSE; at each step, the correct
response to the stimulus remains the spoken word
house. A variety of other schematics of objects, each
with its own separate spoken word, are similarly
modified into printed words over time. Eventually, a
situation is created in which the child may produce
spoken words that correspond to the printed words
(e.g., Cooper et al., 2007). McDougall, Hawkins,
Brady, and Jenkins (2006) described various imple-
mentations of the changing-criterion design in edu-
cation and suggested that the changing-criterion
design can profitably be combined with A-B-A-B or
multiple-baseline designs to establish optimal
designs for individuals in need of large-scale behav-
ior changes.
Actual laboratory experiments and educational
or clinical interventions using variations of changing-
criterion designs are customarily highly complex
mixtures of different methods. For example, to gen-
erate visual guidance of motor behavior in chimpan-
zees, Iversen and Matsuzawa (1996) introduced an
automated training protocol to bring line drawing
with a finger on a touch screen under stimulus con-
trol. Finger movement left “electronic ink” on the
screen surface. The top-left diagram in Figure 1.10
shows a sketch of the 10-step training procedure.
Each session presented in mixed order four trial
types as four orientations of an array of circles (as
indicated). The chimpanzees had to touch the cir-
cles to produce reinforcement. Stimuli changed
across and within sessions. Thus, within Steps 2 and
3, the circles were moved closer across trials, and
Single-Case Research Methods
the number of circles increased as well. The objec-
tive was to enable a topography change from touch-
lift to a continuous finger motion across circles, as
in touch-drag. The lower diagram in Figure 1.10
shows the development of drawing for one subject
for one of the four trial types on the monitor.
Touch-lift is indicated by a dot and touch-drag
(touch and then move the finger while it still has
contact with the monitor) is indicated by a thick line
that connects successive circles. The figure shows
the interplay between procedure and results. The
circles come closer together, the number of circles
increases, and the chimpanzee’s behavior changes
accordingly from touch-lift to touch-drag. Small
specks of not lifting the finger between consecutive
circles initially appear in Session 13, and the first
full sweep across all circles without lifting appears
already in Session 14 and is fully developed by Ses-
sion 16. The time to complete each trial (vertical
lines) shortens as the topography changed from
touch-lift to touch-drag. Eventually, the chimpanzee
swept over the circles in one movement for all four
trial types. In the remaining steps, the stimuli were
changed by fading techniques across and within ses-
sions from an array of circles to just two dots, one
where drawing should start and one where it should
end. An additional aspect of the method was that the
chimpanzees were also taught to end the trials them-
selves by pressing a trial termination key, which was
introduced in Step 6. Thereby, the end of the drawn
trace (lifting of the finger) came under control by
the stimuli on the monitor and not by delivery of
reinforcement. The final performance was a highly
precise drawing behavior under visual guidance by
the stimuli on the screen. Such stimulus control of
complex motor performance was acquired with a
completely automated method over a span of about
100 sessions (3–4 weeks) entirely by continuously
rearranging reinforcement contingencies and
stimulus-fading procedures in small steps without
the use of verbal instruction. In the final perfor-
mance, the chimpanzees would look at the dots, aim
one finger at the start dot, rapidly move the finger
across the monitor, lift the finger at the second dot,
and then press the trial termination key to produce
reinforcement, all in less than 1 second for each
trial. The top right graph in Figure 1.10 shows the
17
 Iver H. Iversen
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Figure 1.10.  Top left: Schematic of the experimental procedure. Top right: Frequency plot of angles of
drawing, as illustrated in the top images. Bottom: Data are from one trial type, and all trials of that type are
shown in six successive sessions. Number of circles and distance between circles changed within and across ses-
sions. A dot indicates touch-lift, and a black line indicates touch-drag. From “Visually Guided Drawing in the
Chimpanzee (Pan Troglodytes),” by I. H. Iversen and T. Matsuzawa, 1996, Japanese Psychological Research, 38,
pp. 128, 131, 133. Copyright 1996 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Reprinted with permission.

resulting control of the angle of the drawn trace for
each trial type.
When behavior control techniques are success-
ful and produce very reliable and smooth perfor-
mance, spectators of the final performance may not
quite believe that the subjects could at some point
in time not do this. In fact, a renowned develop-
mental psychologist happened to visit the labora-
tory while the drawing experiment was ongoing.
On seeing one of the chimpanzees draw line after
line smoothly and without hesitation (in Step 10),
he exclaimed that the investigators had wasted their
time training the chimpanzees and added that they
could “obviously” already draw because such
smooth and precise motor performance could not at
all have been acquired by simple shaping. Such
comments may be somewhat amusing to behavior
analysts. Yet, they are made by professionals in
other areas of psychology and reveal a disturbing
lack of understanding of and respect for effective
behavior control techniques developed with the use
of single-case research methods. Unfortunately, the
commentaries also reveal a failure by behavior ana-
lysts to promote understanding about behavior

18

analysis, even to professionals in other areas of
psychology.
Discrete-Trial Designs
A discrete trial is the presentation of some stimu-
lus material and implementation of a response–­
reinforcer contingency that applies only in the pres-
ence of that stimulus. The discrete-trial design has
long been a standard procedure for use with animals
in all sorts of experiments within and outside of
behavior analysis. Complex experiments and educa-
tional projects, for example, involving conditional
discriminations (e.g., matching to sample), are often
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
based on discrete-trial designs (see Volume 2, Chap-
ter 6, this handbook).
Historically, the discrete-trial method has
become almost the hallmark of applied behavior
analysis, especially for its use in education and treat-
ment of children with intellectual disabilities (Baer,
2005). For example, the method may be as simple as
presenting a picture of an animal, and the response
that produces the reinforcer in this trial is the spo-
ken name of the animal on the picture; in another
trial, the picture may be of another animal, and the
reinforced response is the name of that animal.
Thus, the method is useful for teaching which
­stimuli (verbal or pictorial) should control which
responses and when. Loosely speaking, the discrete-
trial method teaches when a response is permitted
and when it is not. The method may be used in a
very informal way, as in training when normal activ-
ities should and should not occur. The method may
also be presented very formally in an automated
arrangement, as in the above example with chim-
panzees. In applied behavior analysis, the discrete-
trial method is useful for teaching single units of
behavior such as acquisition of nouns but is less
useful for teaching sequential behaviors, such as
brushing teeth (Steege & Mace, 2007). Apparently,
the very term discrete-trial teaching has of late, out-
side the field of applied behavior analysis, come to
be considered as a simple procedure for simple
behaviors. Attempts have been made, therefore, to
present applied behavior analysis to audiences out-
side of behavior analysis as a considerably richer set
of methods than just discrete-trial methods (Ghezzi,
2007; Steege & Mace, 2007).
Single-Case Research Methods
Time Scales of Single-Case Research
Methods
The time scale can vary considerably for single-case
research methods. Laboratory demonstrations with
animals using the A-B-A design to show acquisition
and extinction of a simple operant can usually be
accomplished in a matter of 20 to 30 minutes (e.g.,
Figure 1.4). Educational interventions using A-B-A-
B designs may last for weeks. Therapeutic interven-
tions for children with autism spectrum disorder
may last a few years, with multiple changes in
designs within this time period (e.g., Lovaas, 1987).
Green, Brennan, and Fein (2002), for example,
described a behavior analysis treatment project for
one toddler with autism, Catherine. Treatment con-
tinued for 3 years with gradually increasing com-
plexity, beginning with instruction in home settings,
through other settings, and eventually to regular
preschool settings with minimal instruction. Figure
1.11 shows the chronological order of skill intro-
duction for the 1st year. The design is a gradual
introduction of skill complexity in which previ-
ously acquired skills serve as prerequisites for new
skills; the logic of the design is similar to that of the
­changing-criterion design, mentioned earlier, except
that the criterion change is across topographically
different behaviors and situations. There is no base-
line for each skill other than the therapist’s knowl-
edge that a given skill was absent or not sufficiently
developed before it was explicitly targeted for acqui-
sition treatment. There are no withdrawals because,
for such real-life therapeutic interventions, they
would force removal of an acquired, desirable skill.
Effective withdrawals may even be impossible for
many of the acquired skills such as eye contact, imi-
tation, and speech. Instead, continued progress
revealed that the overall program of intervention
was successful. Besides, the study replicated previ-
ous similar studies. Green et al. concluded that
“over the course of 3 years of intense, comprehen-
sive treatment, Catherine progressed from exhibit-
ing substantial delays in multiple skill domains to
functioning at or above her age level in all domains”
(p. 97).
Multiple-baseline designs can on occasion last
for years. D. K. Fox, Hopkins, and Anger (1987),
for example, introduced a token reinforcement
19
 Iver H. Iversen
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

Figure 1.11.  Timeline for teaching various skills to a single

child in an intense behavior analysis program. Arrows indicate that
instruction continued beyond the time period indicated here. From
“Intensive Behavioral Treatment for a Toddler at High Risk for
Autism,” by G. Green, L. C. Brennan, and D. Fein, 2002, Behavior
Modification, 26, p. 82. Copyright 2002 by Sage Publications.
Reprinted with permission.

­ rogram for safety behaviors in two open-pit mines.

p single-case research methods, the case may not nec-
Concurrent baseline recordings of safety were
recorded for both mines. After 2 years in one mine,
the contingencies were changed for that mine, and
the baseline was continued for the other mine for
another 3 years before the contingencies were
changed for that mine, too. For this 15-year project,
at each mine the contingencies were applied at the
level of both the individual worker and teams of
workers. This example serves as a reminder that for
essarily be one individual but a group of individuals—
and in this case, the group may even change
members over time.
The length of time a project lasts is not an
­essential aspect of single-case research designs. The
essential aspects are that data consist of repeated
observations or recordings and that such data are
compared across different experimental or treatment
conditions.

20

Using Single-Case Designs for
Assessment
A multitude of methods have been developed to
assess behavior. The general methodology is similar
to single-case designs, which can be used in testing
which specific stimuli control a given client’s
behavior.
Functional Assessment
Functional assessment seeks to ascertain the imme-
diate causes of problem behavior by identifying
antecedent events that initiate the behavior and con-
sequent events that reinforce and maintain the
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
behavior. The goal of assessment is to determine the
most appropriate intervention for the given individ-
ual. For example, a child exhibiting self-injurious
behavior may be placed in several different situa-
tions to determine which situations and possible
consequences of the behavior in those situations
affect the behavior frequency. The situations may be
(a) alone, (b) alone with toys, (c) with one parent,
(d) with the other parent, (e) with a sibling, and
(f) with a teacher. The child is exposed to one situa-
tion each session with situations alternating across
sessions. For determination of reliability, each situa-
tion is usually presented more than once. If the
problem behavior in this example occurs most fre-
quently when either parent is present, and it is
observed that the parent interacts with the child
when the problem behavior occurs, then the infer-
ence is drawn that the problem behavior may be
maintained by parental interaction (i.e., positive rein-
forcement from attention) and that the parent’s entry is
an antecedent for the behavior (i.e., parental entrance
is an immediate cause of initiation of the behavior).
The therapist will then design an intervention based
on the information collected during assessment.
Causes of the problem behavior are inferred from func-
tional assessment methods, because no experimental
analysis is performed in which the causes are manip-
ulated systematically to determine how they influ-
ence behavior. Functional assessment of problem
behaviors has become very prevalent; special issues
and books have been published on how to conduct
the assessments (e.g., Dunlap & Kincaid, 2001; Neef
& Iwata, 1994). Recently, functional assessment has
appeared to have taken on a life of its own, separate
Single-Case Research Methods
from the goal of providing impetus for intervention,
with publications presenting results from assess-
ment alone without actual follow-up intervention.
Thus, the reader is left wondering whether the
causes of the problem behavior revealed by the
assessment package were also causes that could be
manipulated and whether such manipulations
would in fact improve the problem behavior.
Functional assessment serves as a useful clini-
cal and educational tool to determine possible
immediate causes of problem behavior. How-
ever, reliability of assessment outcome cannot be
fully evaluated without a direct link between the
inferred causes of problem behavior in assessment
and the outcome of subsequent intervention
using manipulations of these inferred causes for
the same client.
Assessment Using Discrete-Trial
Procedures
Many children and adults with intellectual disorders
have not acquired expressive language, and commu-
nication with them can be difficult or impossible. A
method called facilitated communication claims to
enable communication with such clients by having a
specially trained person, the facilitator, hold the cli-
ent’s hand or arm while the client types with one
finger on a keyboard. Because some typed messages
have expressed advanced language use without the
clients ever having shown other evidence of such
language, facilitated communication has been ques-
tioned as a means of authentic communication. The
question is whether the facilitator rather than the
client could be the author of the typed messages. To
test for such a possibility, several investigators have
used single-case research methods to examine stim-
ulus control of typing (e.g., Montee, Miltenberger,
& Wittrock, 1995; Wheeler, Jacobson, Paglieri, &
Schwartz, 1993). The most common test is to first
present the client and the facilitator with a series of
pictures in discrete trials and ask the client to type
the name of the object shown on the picture. If the
client types the correct object names, then the
method is changed by adding test probes on some
trials. On those test trials, the pictures are arranged
such that the facilitator sees one picture, and the
client sees another picture; an important added
21
 Iver H. Iversen

methodological feature is that the client cannot see

the picture the facilitator sees, and vice versa. These
studies have shown with overwhelming reliability
that the clients type the name of the picture that the
facilitators see; if the clients see a different picture,
then the clients do not type the name of the picture
they see but instead type the name of the picture the
facilitator sees. Thus, these studies have demon-
strated, client by client, that it is the facilitator who
types the messages and that the pictures do not con-
trol correct typing by the clients—the clients cannot
communicate the names of the pictures they see.
For commentaries and reviews of this literature,
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.

see Green (2005); Green and Shane (1994); and

Jacobson, Mulick, and Schwartz (1995). As Green
(2005) pointed out, the continued false beliefs by
facilitators, family, caregivers, and news media that
clients actually communicate with facilitated com-
munication may in fact deprive them of an opportu-
nity to receive effective, scientifically validated
treatment.

Real-Life Assessment Using Multistage

Reversal-Replication Designs
Applications of single-case research methods with
clients in real-life situations away from clinic or
school may not always follow a pure, prearranged
formula. Contextual factors, such as varying client
health and family situations, are additional consider-
ations. In such cases, the consistent replication of
behavior patterns in similar conditions across multi-
ple sessions becomes the indicator of whether a
given treatment or assessment has the intended out-
come. For example, completely paralyzed patients
with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis were trained to
communicate using only their brainwaves (via elec-
troencephalogram) to control the movement of a
cursor on a computer screen (Birbaumer et al.,
1999). Letters were placed on the screen, and the
patient could move the cursor toward them and
thereby spell words to communicate. In additional
experiments, abilities to distinguish verbs from
nouns, odd from even numbers, and consonants
from vowels and to perform simple computations
were assessed in a matching-to-sample–type task
(Iversen et al., 2008). The top part of Figure 1.12
shows a schematic of the events during one 5-second
Figure 1.12.  Top: Schematic of the events in a single
trial. The first 1.5 seconds is an observation period (in
this case, the presession instruction was to always select
the noun of a noun–verb choice; new words appeared
on each trial, and the correct position varied randomly
from trial to trial). A 0.5-second baseline of electroen-
cephalogram (EEG) is then recorded, followed by an
active phase in which the patient can control the cursor
(ball) on the screen for 3 seconds. Bottom: Data from
one patient with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis from one
training day with several successive tasks. T = task; T1 =
simple target; T5 = noun–verbs; T7 = color matching;
T8 = addition or subtraction matching. From “A Brain–
Computer Interface Tool to Assess Cognitive Functions
in Completely Paralyzed Patients With Amyotrophic
Lateral Sclerosis,” by I. H. Iversen, N. Ghanayim, A.
Kübler, N. Neumann, N. Birbaumer, and J. Kaiser, 2008,
Clinical Neurophysiology, 119, pp. 2217, 2220. Copyright
2008 by Elsevier. Reprinted with permission.
trial. The patient gets online visual feedback from
the electroencephalogram in the form of cursor
movement. If the cursor reaches the correct stimu-
lus, then a smiley face appears on the screen. The

22

patients lived in their private homes with constant
care and were assessed intermittently over several
sessions spanning a few hours once or twice each
week. The ideal scenario was always to test patients
several times on a very simple task, such as steering
the cursor to a filled box versus an open box, to
make sure that the electrodes were attached cor-
rectly, equipment worked, and the patient could still
use the electroencephalogram feedback to control
the cursor. Once the patient reached at least 85%
correct on a simple task, then tasks with assessment
stimuli (e.g., nouns and verbs) were presented for
one or several sessions.
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
If the neurodegenerative amyotrophic lateral
sclerosis destroys the patient’s ability to discriminate
words or numbers, then the patient should show
a deficit in such tasks compared with when the
patient can solve a simple task. To determine
whether a patient has a potential deficit in a given
skill, such as odd–even discrimination, then it is
necessary to know that the patient can still do the
simple task of moving the cursor to the correct tar-
get when the target is just a filled box. Thus, to
interpret the data, it was necessary to present the
simple task several times at the beginning of, during,
and end of a given day the patient was visited by the
testing team. It proved challenging at times to con-
vince family members that it was necessary to repeat
the simple tasks several times because, as the family
members said, “You already know that he can do
that, so why do you keep wasting time repeating it?”
The bottom part of Figure 1.12 shows the results for
each of 16 consecutive sessions for a single test day
for one patient. The task numbers on the x-axis refer
to the type of training task, with Task 1 (T1) being
the simplest, which was repeated several times. The
overall design forms a phase sequence of A-B-C-A-
C-D-A, in which the A phases present the simple
task and serve as a baseline control, and the B, C,
and D phases present more complex test material.
The A phases thus serve as a control for equipment
integrity and for the patient’s basic ability to move
the cursor to a correct target. For example, had the
training day ended after the session in Phase D, it
would have been difficult to conclude that the
patient had a deficit in this task because the deteri-
orating percentage correct could reflect a loose
Single-Case Research Methods
electrode, equipment failure, or the lack of patient
cooperation. That the patient scored high again on
the simple task in the last A phase, immediately after
the session in the D phase, demonstrates that the
patient had some difficulties discriminating the
stimuli presented in Task 8 in the D phase (i.e.,
addition and subtraction, such as 3 + 5 or 7 − 2).
Among the many findings is that several warm-up
sessions were necessary at the beginning of the day
before the patient reached the usual 85% correct on
the simple task. Several such training days with this
very ill, speechless and motionless patient demon-
strated that the patient had some deficits in basic
skills. Thus, the data showed that the patient, a for-
mer banker, now had problems with very simple
addition and subtraction.
This example illustrates the use of single-case
research methods in complex living situations with
patients with extreme disability. To extract mean-
ingful data from research with such patients in a
varying environment, it is necessary to know repeat-
edly that the complex recording and control equip-
ment works as intended and that patients’ basic
skills are continuously intact because no verbal
communication from the patient is possible (i.e., the
patient cannot tell the trainer that he is tired or that
something else may be the matter). Indeed, both
trainers and family members had to be instructed in
some detail, and often, as to why it was necessary to
repeat the simple tasks several times on each visit
to the patient’s home. The multiphase replication
design with repeated presentation of phases of sim-
ple tasks in alternation with more complex tasks is a
necessary component of single-case research or test-
ing methods applied to complex living situations in
which communication may be compromised or
impossible.
Data Analysis Methods
A fundamental aspect of single-case designs is that
behavior is recorded repeatedly and under the same
set of methods and definitions across different
experimental, educational, or treatment conditions.
Chapter 6 of this volume covers these issues; see
also J. M. Johnston and Pennypacker (2009) and
Cooper et al. (2007).
23
 Iver H. Iversen
Data Recording Methods
Automated recording techniques (customarily used
with animal subjects) require frequent verification
that monitoring devices (switches, photocells,
touch screens, etc.) record behavior as intended and
that these monitoring devices are calibrated cor-
rectly. With observational methods, calibration of
criteria for response occurrence used by different
observers is a crucial issue, and intraobserver as
well as interobserver agreement calculations are
essential for objective recording of behavior (see
Chapter 6, this volume). Equally essential is intra-
and interpersonnel consistency in the methods of
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
delivering consequences to clients in educational
and clinical settings. However, reports of agreement
scores do not ordinarily include information about
how consistently personnel follow described
methods.
Common measures of behavior are frequency
of occurrence (often converted to response rate),
response duration, and response topography (e.g.,
Barlow et al., 2009). A given behavior can also be
analyzed in terms of its placement in time as a
behavior pattern or its placement among other
behaviors, as in analyses of the sequential properties
of behavior (e.g., Henton & Iversen, 1978; Iversen,
1991; see also Chapter 12, this volume).
Visual Data Analysis Methods
Behavior analysis has a long tradition (beginning
with Pavlov, Thorndike, and Skinner) of focusing
on nonstatistical, visual analyses of data from sin-
gle subjects (Iversen, 1991). In Chapter 9 of this
volume, Bourret and Pietras describe a variety of
methods of visual data analysis. Such analyses are
now fairly standard and are covered in most text-
books on single-case research designs (e.g., Kennedy,
2005; Morgan & Morgan, 2009) and in textbooks
on behavior analysis in general (e.g., Cooper et al.,
2007).
Visual analyses of data are not particular to
experimental or applied behavior analysis and per-
meate all sciences and other forms of communica-
tion, as exemplified in the books by Tufte (e.g.,
1983, 1990; see also Iversen, 1988) on analyzing
and presenting visual information. Within behavior
analysis, a classic text on visual analysis of behav-
24
ioral data is Parsonson and Baer (1978), which
­covers analysis of data from basic single-case
research designs.
Fundamental issues in visual analysis are eval-
uations of baseline stability and baseline trends.
Baselines should ideally vary little, and experi-
menters should analyze any conditions responsi-
ble for unexplained variation (Sidman, 1960).
Data from an intervention cannot always be inter-
preted if variability from the baseline carries over
into the intervention phase. Trends in baselines
can be problematic if they are in the direction of
the expected experimental or therapeutic effect.
For example, if a baseline rate of behavior gradu-
ally increases over several observation periods,
and behavior increases further during the inter-
vention, then it can be difficult or impossible to
determine whether the intervention was responsi-
ble for the increase (e.g., Cooper et al., 2007). The
expressions appropriate baseline and inappropriate
baseline have appeared in the literature to empha-
size this issue. An appropriate baseline is either a
flat baseline without a trend or a baseline with a
trend in the direction opposite to the expected
effect. For example, if the rate of self-injury in a
child is steadily increasing in baseline, and the
intervention is expected to decrease the behavior,
then an increasing baseline is appropriate for
intervention because the behavior is expected
to decrease in the intervention even against an
increasing baseline. There is certainly no rationale
in waiting for self-injury to stabilize before inter-
vention starts. However, an inappropriate baseline
is one that has a trend in the same direction as the
expected outcome of the intervention (see also
­Cooper et al., 2007).
Patterns of data are important in interpretations
of behavior changes, in addition to descriptive sta-
tistical evaluations. For example, the two trends
previously noted here in data for A-B, A-B-A, A-B-A-
B, and multiple-baseline designs (i.e., Figure 1.9)
would not be apparent had data been presented only
as averages for each phase of recorded behavior.
Plotting data for each session captures trends, vari-
ability, and intervention outcomes. Without such
data, the investigator easily misses important infor-
mation that might lead to subsequent changes in

procedure. In fact, successful interaction between
researcher and subject depends on visual data
­analysis concomitant with project progression (e.g.,
Sidman, 1960; Skinner, 1938)
Statistical Data Analysis Methods
Statistical analyses of behavioral data in both basic
research and application have been controversial
since Skinner’s (1938) The Behavior of Organisms,
which was devoid of traditional statistical analyses.
Behavior analysis gathers information about the
behavior of individual subjects, whereas the tradi-
tional statistical approach gathers information about
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
groups of subjects and offers no information about
data from individual subjects. However, visual anal-
yses of behavioral data are not always sufficient, and
statistical methods can be used to supplement the
analysis. Several authors have analyzed the ongoing
controversy regarding use of statistics in behavior
analysis and psychology (e.g., Barlow et al., 2009;
Kratochwill & Brody, 1978; see Chapter 7, this vol-
ume). Chapters 11 and 12 of this volume provide
information on new statistical techniques, which
may prove useful for behavior analysts conducting
time-series single-case research designs.
A major issue with the use of statistics in behav-
ior analysis is the treatment of variability in data.
Visual analyses take variability as informative data
that can prompt an experimental analysis of the
sources of this variability (e.g., Sidman, 1960). With
statistical analysis, however, variability is artificially
compressed to a more manageable single number
(variance or standard deviation) without analysis of
the source of the variability. Thus, visual analysis
and statistical analysis can be seen as antithetical
tools to uncover causes of variability in the behavior
of the individual subject.
Consider, for example, the use of a simple t test
for evaluation of data from two successive phases of
an A-B design (e.g., Figure 1.3) as an illustration of
the problems one may face with the use of a statisti-
cal test created for entirely different experimental
designs. If the B phase shows acquisition of behavior
at a gradually increasing rate compared with the
baseline in the A phase, the behavior analyst has no
problems visually identifying a large effect of the
manipulation (given that confounding variables can
Single-Case Research Methods
be ruled out). If a t test is applied, however, compar-
ing the baseline data with the treatment data, the
standard deviation for the B phase may be very large
because data range from the baseline level to the
highest rate when treatment is most effective. The
result may be a nonsignificant effect. Besides, the
data in the B phase showing a gradual acquisition
may not be normally distributed and may not be
independent measures (i.e., as a series of increasing
values, data on session n influence data on session
n + 1); the result is that the t test is not valid. How-
ever, the failure of a common statistical test to show
an effect certainly does not mean that such data are
unimportant or that there is no effect of the experi-
mental manipulation. Single-case research methods
are not designed for hypothesis testing and inferen-
tial statistics but for analysis of behavior of the indi-
vidual subject and for development of methods that
can serve to help individuals acquire appropriate
behavior. The assumptions of inferential statistics,
meant for between-group comparisons, with inde-
pendent observations, random selection of subjects,
random allocation to treatment, and random treat-
ment onset and offset are obviously not fulfilled in
single-case research methods. Eventually, however,
statistical tests appropriate for single-case methods
may evolve from further developments in analyses
of interrupted time-series data (e.g., Barlow et al.,
2009; Crosbie, 1993; see Chapters 11 and 12, this
volume).
Aggregation from individual data points through
averages and standard deviations to statistical tests
to p values and to the final binary statement “yes or
no” is, of course, common in all sciences, including
psychology. Quantitative reduction of complex
behavior patterns to yes or no eases communication
of theories and ideas through publications and pre-
sentations, in which actual data from individual sub-
jects or individual trials may be omitted. In contrast,
a focus on data linked more directly to experimental
manipulations can lead to demonstrations of stun-
ning control and prediction of behavior at the
moment-to-moment level for the individual subject
(e.g., Henton & Iversen, 1978; Sidman, 1960),
which is much closer to everyday interactions
between behavior and environment. In daily life,
people respond promptly to single instances of
25
 Iver H. Iversen
interpersonal and environmental cues. Such stimu-
lus control of behavior is the essence of interhuman
communication and conduct. By demonstrating
control of behavior at this level for the individual
subject, behavior analysis can be both a science of
behavior and a tool for educational and therapeutic
interventions.
Quantitative Descriptions of Behavior–
Environment Relations
Behavioral data from single-case designs have
invited quantitative descriptions of the relationships
between behavior and environmental variables. Such
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
descriptions vary considerably from issue to issue
and attract general interest in both basic research
(Shull, 1991) and application (see Chapter 10, this
volume).
Single-Case Designs and Group
Studies Compared
“Operant methods make their own use of Grand
Numbers; instead of studying a thousand rats for
one hour each, or a hundred rats for ten hours each,
the investigator is likely to study one rat for a thou-
sand hours” (Skinner, 1969, p. 112). Research
involving comparisons of groups of subjects, in
which each group is exposed once to one level of a
manipulation, is rare in behavior analysis, in partic-
ular with animal subjects.
Yet, group research or studies with a large num-
ber of participants sometimes have relevance for
behavior analysis. For example, in a recent interview
(Holth, 2010), Murray Sidman remarked that large-
scale implementation of behavior analysis tech-
niques may require prior demonstration of the
effectiveness of those techniques in large popula-
tions. Thus, studies using randomization and con-
trol groups may be necessary for promulgation of
effective behavior control techniques. A positive
outcome of a group study may not make behavior
analysts know more about control of an individual
client’s behavior, yet such an outcome may nonethe-
less make more people know about behavior analy-
sis. For example, the widely cited group study by
Lovaas (1987) generated broad interest in behavior
analysis methods for treatment of children with
26
autism. One group of children (n = 19) with the
diagnosis of autism received intensive behavior anal-
ysis procedures (40 hours/week) for 2 years, and
another group (n = 19) with the same diagnosis did
not receive the same treatment. The differences
between the groups were vast; for example, 49% of
the children in the treatment group showed signifi-
cant gains in IQ and other measures of behavioral
functioning compared with the other group. This
study helped generate respect among parents and
professionals for behavioral methods in treatment
of children with autism. Since the Lovaas (1987)
study, several other studies have similarly compared
two groups of children (sometimes randomly
assigned) with similar levels of autism spectrum dis-
order, in which one group received intensive behav-
ior analysis treatment for 1 or several years, and the
other group received less treatment or no treatment
other than what is ordinarily provided by the child’s
community (so-called “eclectic” treatment). For
example, Dawson et al. (2009) recently reported one
such study with 48 children (18–30 months old)
diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder in a ran-
domized controlled trial. Statistical procedures dem-
onstrated significant gains in a variety of behavioral
measures for the group that received the treatment.
For this study and the Lovaas study, each child went
through complex and intense procedures based on
single-case research methods for about 2 years. The
group comparisons mainly used standard measures
of the children’s performances. Enough group
­studies have, in fact, been conducted that several
meta-analyses of the efficacy of behavior analysis
treatment of children with autism spectrum disorder
have now been performed on the basis of such
studies.
Group comparison methods have also increased
the visibility of behavior analysis techniques in areas
of application. For example, Taub et al. (2006) used
behavioral techniques in treatment of patients with
paralysis of arms or legs resulting from stroke or
brain injury. With the less affected or “normal”
limb restrained to prevent its use, 21 patients who
received massed practice of the affected limb (6 hours/
day for 10 consecutive weekdays with shaping of
movement and establishment of stimulus control
of movement using social reinforcement) were

c­ ompared with a matched control group of 20
patients who received customary, standard physical
therapy and general support. Treatment patients
showed huge and clinically significant gains in
motor control of the affected arm, whereas patients
in the control group showed no such gains. A simi-
lar example is provided in research by Horne et al.
(2004). These investigators had first obtained reli-
able single-case data that reinforcement techniques
could be used effectively to increase the consump-
tion of fruits and vegetables among schoolchildren.
To promote the findings, Horne et al. conducted a
large group study with 749 schoolchildren. The
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
children were split into an experimental group and a
control group. A baseline of fruit and vegetable con-
sumption was taken first. Then at lunchtime, fruit
and vegetable consumption was encouraged by hav-
ing the children in the experimental group watch
video adventures featuring heroic peers (the Food
Dudes) who enjoy eating fruits and vegetables, and
the children received reinforcers for eating fruit and
vegetables. Children in the control group had free
access to fruit and vegetables. Compared with the
children in the control group, fruit and vegetable
consumption was significantly higher among the
children in the experimental group. On the basis of
such data, this program has now been implemented
on a large scale in all schools in Ireland and in other
places in England (Lowe, 2010).
Such group-comparison studies, published in
journals that do not ordinarily publish studies using
single-case research methods, may be helpful in pro-
moting general knowledge about behavior analysis
to a much wider audience. In addition, when effec-
tive, evidence-based behavior-analytic treatments
become broadly recognized from publications with a
large number of participants and in renowned jour-
nals, then granting agencies, insurance companies,
journalists, and maybe even university administrators
and politicians start to pay attention to the findings.
For behavior analysts, group studies may not seem
to add much basic knowledge beyond what is
already known from studies using single-case
research methods. Publication of group studies may,
however, be a tactic for promotion of basic, impor-
tant, and effective behavioral techniques beyond the
readership of behavior analysts. The need for
Single-Case Research Methods
informing the general public, therapists, scientists in
other areas, educators, politicians, and so forth
about behavior analysis techniques should, how-
ever, be balanced with a concern for ethical treat-
ment of the participants involved. When a behavior
analyst, based on experience with previous results,
knows full well that a particular treatment using
­single-case methodology has proven to be effective
over and over, then it is indeed an ethical dilemma
to knowingly split a population of children in need
of that treatment into two groups for comparison of
treatment versus no treatment. Children who are in
a control group for a few years for a valid statistical
comparison with the treatment group may thus be
deprived of an opportunity for known, effective
treatment.
Several so-called randomized controlled group
studies and meta-analyses of such studies have been
conducted over the past few decades to determine
whether applied behavior modification actually
works (e.g., Spreckley & Boyd, 2009). For elaborate
comments and critiques of some meta-analysis stud-
ies of applied behavior analysis methods, see Kim-
ball (2009). These time-consuming studies, with a
presumed target audience of policymakers and
insurance companies, would clearly not have been
undertaken unless countless studies using single-
case methods had already demonstrated that the
behavior of an individual child can be modified and
sustained with appropriate management of rein-
forcement contingencies and stimulus control tech-
niques. The sheer mass of already existing studies
based on single-case methodology with successful
outcomes, for literally thousands of individuals
across a variety of behavior problems and treatment
settings, poses the question, “How many more ran-
domized controlled group studies and subsequent
meta-analyses are necessary before single-case meth-
ods can be accepted in general as effective in
treatment?”
The use of inferential statistics as a method of
proof leads to the very odd situation that such meta-
analyses may explicitly exclude the results from
application of single-case methods with individual
clients (e.g., Spreckley & Boyd, 2009), even though
the overall purpose of the meta-analyses is to decide
whether such methods work for individual clients.
27
 Iver H. Iversen
Profound misunderstandings of what can be
accomplished by single-case research methods in
general can on occasion be heard among pedagogues
and critics of applied behavior analysis interventions
for children with developmental disorders. The
argument is that the trained behavior would have
developed anyway given enough time (without
training). For example, Spreckley and Boyd (2009)
stated that “what is too often forgotten is that the
overwhelming majority of children with [autism
spectrum disorder] change over time as part of their
development as opposed to change resulting from
an intervention” (p. 343). Commentaries such as
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
these present a negation of the immense accumula-
tion of experimental and applied hard evidence that
individual behavior can indeed be effectively and
reliably changed with the use of behavior control
techniques. Yet such comments persist and slow the
application. Some behavior analysts appropriately
react when professionals make such claims without
supporting data (e.g., Kimball, 2009; Morris, 2009).
Group studies may have their place in behavior
analysis when intervention should not be withdrawn
because of the social significance of the target behavior.
Baer (1975) suggested combining methods of multiple-
baseline designs and group comparisons, in which
one group of subjects first serves as a comparison to
another group who receives intervention; later, the
comparison group also receives the same intervention.
Conclusion
Behavior analysts have developed designs and tech-
niques that can increase or decrease target behavior
on a certain occasion and time. These methods serve
as tools for an experimental analysis of behavior.
The same tools are used in applied behavior analysis
to modify and maintain behavior for the purpose
of helping a client. Single-case research designs offer
a wide range of methods, and this overview has
merely scratched the surface. Because of their accu-
mulated successes, single-case designs are now
being adopted in areas outside of behavior analysis
such as medicine (Janosky et al., 2009), occupational
therapy (M. V. Johnston & Smith, 2010), and pain
management (Onghena & Edgington, 2005).
Indeed, Guyatt et al. (2000), in their review of
28
evidence-based medicine, placed single-case
research designs with randomization of treatment
highest in their hierarchy of strength of evidence for
treatment decisions.
Single-case research designs feature an important
component of replication of behavioral phenomena
for a single individual (J. M. Johnston & Penny-
packer, 2009; Sidman, 1960). With direct replica-
tion, the intervention is repeated, and when behavior
changes on each replication, the experimenter or
therapist has identified one of the variables that con-
trol the behavior. With systematic replication, the
same subject or different subjects or species may
be exposed to a variation of an original procedure
(­Sidman, 1960), and a successful outcome fosters the
accumulation of knowledge (see also Chapter 7, this
volume). Sidman’s (1971) original demonstration of
stimulus equivalence stands out as a golden example
of the scientific value of replication as a method of
proof because the remarkable results using a single
child, in a carefully designed experiment, have been
replicated numerous times and thereby spurred
development of a whole new field of research and
application.
Behavior analysts are sometimes weary of designs
that compare groups of subjects because no behav-
ioral phenomena are established at the level of the
individual subject with such designs. However, to
promote behavioral phenomena using single-case
research designs, comparisons of experiments are
common, and one thereby inevitably compares
groups of subjects across experiments, often across
species as well. Indeed, such comparisons often
prove the generality of the basic principles discov-
ered with one small set of subjects. Besides, estab-
lishing the efficiency of a behavioral procedure to be
implemented on a large population scale may
require certain types of controlled group studies.
Group designs and multiple-baseline designs can
also be profitably combined to produce powerful
and socially relevant effects on a large scale (e.g.,
D. K. Fox et al., 1987).
With wide implementations in psychology, edu-
cation, medicine, and rehabilitation, single-case
methodology is now firmly established as a viable
means for discovery as well as for application of
basic behavioral mechanisms. Of late, behavior

­ anagement interventions based on single-case
m Bijou, S. W., & Baer, D. M. (1961). Child development
methodology followed up with efficiency determina-
tions from population studies have successfully
demonstrated how the science of the individual can
be a science for all.
Individual prediction is of tremendous
importance, so long as the organism is to
be treated scientifically. (Skinner, 1938,
p. 444)
Man has at his disposal yet another pow-
erful resource—natural science with its
strictly objective methods. This science,
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
as we all know, is making big headway
every day. The facts and considerations
I have placed before you are one of the
numerous attempts to employ—in study-
ing the mechanism of the highest vital
manifestations in the dog, the represen-
tative of the animal kingdom which is
man’s best friend—a consistent, purely
scientific method of thinking. (From
Pavlov’s acceptance speech on receiving
the Nobel Prize in 1904; Pavlov, 1955,
p. 148)
References
Baer, D. M. (1975). In the beginning there was the
response. In E. Ramp & G. Semb (Eds.), Behavior
analysis: Areas of research and application (pp. 16–30).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Baer, D. M. (1993). Advising as if for research productiv-
ity. Clinical Psychologist, 46, 106–109.
Baer, D. M. (2005). Letters to a lawyer. In W. L. Heward,
T. E. Heron, N. A. Neff, S. M. Peterson, D. M.
Sainato, G. Cartledge, . . . J. C. Dardig (Eds.), Focus
on behavior analysis in education: Achievements, chal-
lenges, and opportunities (pp. 3–30). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson.
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.
doi:10.1901/jaba.1968.1-91
Barlow, D. H., Nock, M. K., & Hersen, M. (2009). Single
case experimental designs: Strategies for studying
behavior change (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson
Education.
Bernard, C. (1957). An introduction to the study of experi-
mental medicine. New York, NY: Dover. (Original
work published 1865)
Single-Case Research Methods
I: A systematic and empirical theory. New York, NY:
Appleton-Century-Crofts. doi:10.1037/11139-000
Birbaumer, N., Ghanayim, N., Hinterberger, T., Iversen,
I., Kotchoubey, B., Kübler, A., . . . Flor, H. (1999).
A spelling device for the paralysed. Nature, 398,
297–298. doi:10.1038/18581
Blampied, N. M. (1999). A legacy neglected: Restating the
case for single-case research in cognitive behavior
therapy. Behaviour Change, 16, 89–104. doi:10.1375/
bech.16.2.89
Boakes, R. (1984). From Darwin to behaviorism:
Psychology and the minds of animals. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Boorstin, D. J. (1983). The discoverers: A history of man’s
search to know his world and himself. New York, NY:
Vintage Books.
Boring, E. G. (1929). A history of experimental psychology.
New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Boring, E. G. (1954). The nature and history of experi-
mental control. American Journal of Psychology, 67,
573–589. doi:10.2307/1418483
Brenagan, W., & Iversen, I. H. (2012). Methods to differ-
entially reinforce response duration in rats. Manuscript
in preparation.
Catania, A. C., & Laties, V. G. (1999). Pavlov and
Skinner: Two lives in science. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 72, 455–461.
doi:10.1901/jeab.1999.72-455
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007).
Applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Crosbie, J. (1993). Interrupted time-series analysis with
brief single-subject data. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 61, 966–974. doi:10.1037/0022-
006X.61.6.966
Dawson, G., Rogers, S., Munson, J., Smith, M., Winter,
J., Greenson, J., . . . Varley, J. (2009). Randomized,
controlled trial of an intervention for toddlers with
autism: The early start Denver model. Pediatrics, 125,
e17–e23. doi:10.1542/peds.2009-958
Dunlap, G., & Kincaid, D. (2001). The widening world of
functional assessment: Comments on four manuals
and beyond. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34,
365–377. doi:10.1901/jaba.2001.34-365
Ebbinghaus, H. (1913). Memory (H. A. Rueger & C. E.
Bussenius, Trans.). New York, NY: Teachers College.
(Original work published 1885)
Eysenck, H. J. (1960). Behavior therapy and the neuroses.
New York, NY: Pergamon Press.
Fox, D. K., Hopkins, B. L., & Anger, W. K. (1987). The
long-term effects of a token economy on safety
performance in open-pit mining. Journal of Applied
29
 Iver H. Iversen
Behavior Analysis, 20, 215–224. doi:10.1901/
jaba.1987.20-215
Fox, R. G., Copeland, R. E., Harris, J. W., Rieth, H. J., &
Hall, R. V. (1975). A computerized system for select-
ing responsive teaching studies, catalogued along
twenty-eight important dimensions. In E. Ramp &
G. Semb (Eds.), Behavior analysis: Areas of research
and application (pp. 124–158). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Ghezzi, P. M. (2007). Discrete trials teaching. Psychology
in the Schools, 44, 667–679. doi:10.1002/pits.20256
Green, G. (2005). Division fellow, Gina Green, reacts to
CNN program “Autism is a World” which focuses
on facilitated communication. Psychology in Mental
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 31, 7–10.
Green, G., Brennan, L. C., & Fein, D. (2002). Intensive
behavioral treatment for a toddler at high risk
for autism. Behavior Modification, 26, 69–102.
doi:10.1177/0145445502026001005
Green, G., & Shane, H. C. (1994). Science, reason, and
facilitated communication. Journal of the Association
for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 151–172.
Greenspan, R. J., & Baars, B. J. (2005). Consciousness
eclipsed: Jacques Loeb, Ivan P. Pavlov, and the rise
of reductionistic biology after 1900. Consciousness
and Cognition, 14, 219–230. doi:10.1016/j.concog.
2004.09.004
Guyatt, G. H., Haynes, R. B., Jaeschke, R. Z., Cook, D. J.,
Green, L., Naylor, C. D., . . . Richardson, W. S.
(2000). Users’ guides to the medical literature: XXV.
Evidence-based medicine: Principles for applying the
users’ guides to patient care. JAMA, 284, 1290–1296.
doi:10.1001/jama.284.10.1290
Harris, B. (1979). Whatever happened to little Albert?
American Psychologist, 34, 151–160. doi:10.1037/
0003-066X.34.2.151
Henton, W. W., & Iversen, I. H. (1978). Classical condi-
tioning and operant conditioning: A response pattern
analysis. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Holth, P. (2010). A research pioneer’s wisdom: An inter-
view with Dr. Murray Sidman. European Journal of
Behavior Analysis, 11, 181–198.
Horne, P. J., Tapper, K., Lowe, C. F., Hardman, C. A.,
Jackson, M. C., & Woolner, J. (2004). Increasing
children’s fruit and vegetable consumption: A peer-
modeling and rewards-based intervention. European
Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 58, 1649–1660.
doi:10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602024
Iversen, I. H. (1988). Tactics of graphic design: A
review of Tufte’s The Visual Display of Quantitative
Information [Book review]. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 49, 171–189.
doi:10.1901/jeab.1988.49-171
30
Iversen, I. H. (1991). Methods of analyzing behavior
patterns. In I. H. Iversen & K. A. Lattal (Eds.),
Techniques in the behavioral and neural sciences:
Experimental analysis of behavior, Part 2 (pp. 193–242).
New York, NY: Elsevier.
Iversen, I. H. (1992). Skinner’s early research: From
reflexology to operant conditioning. American
Psychologist, 47, 1318–1328. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.47.11.1318
Iversen, I. H. (2010). [Laboratory demonstration of acqui-
sition of operant behavior]. Unpublished raw data.
Iversen, I. H. (2012). Tutorial: Multiple baseline designs.
Manuscript in preparation.
Iversen, I. H., Ghanayim, N., Kübler, A., Neumann, N.,
Birbaumer, N., & Kaiser, J. (2008). A brain-
computer interface tool to assess cognitive functions
in completely paralyzed patients with amyotrophic
lateral sclerosis. Clinical Neurophysiology, 119,
2214–2223. doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2008.07.001
Iversen, I. H., & Matsuzawa, T. (1996). Visually guided
drawing in the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes).
Japanese Psychological Research, 38, 126–135.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-5884.1996.tb00017.x
Jacobson, J. W., Mulick, J. W., & Schwartz, A. A. (1995).
A history of facilitated communication: Science, pseu-
doscience, and antiscience. American Psychologist, 50,
750–765. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.750
Janosky, J. E., Leininger, S. L., Hoerger, M. P., &
Libkuman, T. M. (2009). Single subject designs
in biomedicine. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
doi:10.1007/978-90-481-2444-2
Johnston, J. M., & Pennypacker, H. S. (2009). Strategies
and tactics in behavioral research (3rd ed.). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Johnston, M. V., & Smith, R. O. (2010). Single subject
design: Current methodologies and future directions.
OTJR: Occupation,Participation and Health, 30, 4–10.
doi:10.3928/15394492-20091214-02
Jones, M. C. (1924). A laboratory study of fear: The case
of Peter. Pedagogical Seminary, 31, 308–315. doi:10.
1080/08856559.1924.9944851
Kazdin, A. E. (1973). Methodological and assessment
considerations in evaluating reinforcement pro-
grams in applied settings. Journal of Applied Behavior
Analysis, 6, 517–531. doi:10.1901/jaba.1973.6-517
Kazdin, A. E. (2011). Single-case research designs: Methods
for clinical and applied settings (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Keller, F. S., & Schoenfeld, W. N. (1950). Principles of
psychology. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-
Crofts.
Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Single-case designs for educational
research. New York, NY: Pearson Allyn & Bacon.

Kimball, J. W. (2009). Comments on Spreckley and Boyd
(2009). Science in Autism Treatment, 6, 3–19.
Kratochwill, T. R., & Brody, G. H. (1978). Single sub-
ject designs: A perspective on the controversy
over employing statistical inference and impli-
cations for research and training in behavior
modification. Behavior Modification, 2, 291–307.
doi:10.1177/014544557823001
Loeb, J. (1900). Comparative physiology of the brain and
comparative psychology. New York, NY: Putnam.
doi:10.5962/bhl.title.1896
Lovaas, O. I. (1987). Behavioral treatment and normal
educational and intellectual functioning in young
autistic children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 55, 3–9. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.55.1.3
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
Lowe, F. (2010, September). Can behavior analysis change
the world? Paper presented at the Ninth International
Congress on Behavior Studies, Crete, Greece.
Matson, J. L., Sevin, J. A., Fridley, D., & Love, S. R.
(1990). Increasing spontaneous language in three
autistic children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
23, 227–233. doi:10.1901/jaba.1990.23-227
McDougall, D., Hawkins, J., Brady, M., & Jenkins, A.
(2006). Recent innovations in the changing criterion
design: Implications for research and practice in spe-
cial education. Journal of Special Education, 40, 2–15.
doi:10.1177/00224669060400010101
Montee, B. B., Miltenberger, R. G., & Wittrock, D.
(1995). An experimental analysis of facilitated com-
munication. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28,
189–200. doi:10.1901/jaba.1995.28-189
Morgan, D. L., & Morgan, R. K. (2009). Single-case
research methods for the behavioral and health sciences.
Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Morris, E. K. (2009). A case study in the misrepresenta-
tion of applied behavior analysis in autism: The
Gernsbacher lectures. Behavior Analyst, 32, 205–240.
Neef, N. A., & Iwata, B. A. (1994). Current research on
functional analysis methodologies: An introduction.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 211–214.
doi:10.1901/jaba.1994.27-211
O’Neill, R. E., McDonnell, J., Billingsly, F., & Jenson, W.
(2010). Single case designs in educational and commu-
nity settings. New York, NY: Merrill.
Onghena, P., & Edgington, E. S. (2005). Customization
of pain treatment: Single-case design and
analysis. Clinical Journal of Pain, 21, 56–68.
doi:10.1097/00002508-200501000-00007
Paré, W. P. (1990). Pavlov as a psychophysiological
scientist. Brain Research Bulletin, 24, 643–649.
doi:10.1016/0361-9230(90)90002-H
Parsonson, B. S., & Baer, D. M. (1978). The analysis and
presentation of graphic data. In T. R. Kratochwill
Single-Case Research Methods
(Ed.), Single-subject research: Strategies for evaluating
change (pp. 101–165). New York, NY: Academic
Press.
Pavlov, I. P. (1906). The scientific investigation of the
psychical faculties or processes in higher animals.
Science, 24, 613–619. doi:10.1126/science.24.620.613
Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes (G. V. Anrep,
Trans.). London, England: Oxford University Press.
Pavlov, I. P. (1928). Lectures on conditioned reflexes:
Twenty-five years of objective study of the higher nervous
activity (behaviour) of animals (Vol. 1). New York, NY:
International Publishers. doi:10.1037/11081-000
Pavlov, I. P. (1955). Nobel speech delivered in Stockholm
on December 12, 1904. In K. S. Koshtoyants (Ed.),
I. P. Pavlov: Selected works (pp. 129–148). Honolulu,
HI: University Press of the Pacific.
Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. D. (2005). Motor control and
learning: A behavioral emphasis. Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Shull, R. L. (1991). Mathematical description of operant
behavior: An introduction. In I. H. Iversen & K. A.
Lattal (Eds.), Experimental analysis of behavior
(Vol. 2, pp. 243–282). New York, NY: Elsevier.
Sidman, M. (1960). Tactics of scientific research:
Evaluating experimental data in psychology. New
York, NY: Basic Books.
Sidman, M. (1971). Reading and auditory-visual equiva-
lences. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 14,
5–13.
Sidman, M. (1981). Remarks. Behaviorism, 9, 127–129.
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An exper-
imental analysis. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-
Crofts.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New
York, NY: Macmillan.
Skinner, B. F. (1956). A case history in scientific method.
American Psychologist, 11, 221–233. doi:10.1037/
h0047662
Skinner, B. F. (1966). Some responses to the stimulus
“Pavlov.”Conditional Reflex, 1, 74–78.
Skinner, B. F. (1969). Contingencies of reinforcement. New
York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Skinner, B. F. (1978). The ethics of helping people. In
B. F. Skinner (Ed.), Reflections on behaviorism and
society (pp. 33–47). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Skinner, B. F. (1979). The shaping of a behaviorist. New
York, NY: Knopf.
Spreckley, M., & Boyd, R. (2009). Efficacy of applied
behavioral intervention in preschool children with
autism for improving cognitive, language, and adap-
tive behavior: A systematic review and meta analysis.
31
 Iver H. Iversen
Journal of Pediatrics, 154, 338–344. doi:10.1016/j.
jpeds.2008.09.012
Steege, M. W., & Mace, F. C. (2007). Applied behavior
analysis: Beyond discrete trial teaching. Psychology in
the Schools, 44, 91–99. doi:10.1002/pits.20208
Sulzer-Azaroff, B., & Mayer, G. R. (1991). Behavior
analysis for lasting change. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt
Brace.
Taub, E., Uswatte, G., King, D. K., Morris, D., Crago,
J. E., & Chatterjee, A. (2006). A placebo-controlled
trial of constraint induced movement therapy for
upper extremity after stroke. Stroke, 37, 1045–1049.
doi:10.1161/01.STR.0000206463.66461.97
Thorndike, E. L. (1911). Animal intelligence. New York,
Copyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution.
NY: Macmillan.
Thorndike, E. L. (1927). The law of effect. American Journal
of Psychology, 39, 212–222. doi:10.2307/1415413
Todes, D. P. (2002). Pavlov’s physiological factory:
Experiment, interpretation, laboratory enterprise.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Tufte, E. R. (1983). The visual display of quantitative infor-
mation. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
32
Tufte, E. R. (1990). Envisioning information. Cheshire,
CT: Graphics Press.
Ullman, L. P., & Krasner, L. (1965). Case studies in behav-
ior modification. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Van Houten, R., Axelrod, S., Baily, J. S., Favell, J. F.,
Foxx, R. M., Iwata, B. A., & Lovaas, O. I. (1988).
The right to effective behavioral treatment. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 21, 381–384. doi:10.1901/
jaba.1988.21-381
Watson, J. B., & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emo-
tional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
3, 1–14. doi:10.1037/h0069608
Wheeler, D. L., Jacobson, J. W., Paglieri, R. A., &
Schwartz, A. A. (1993). An experimental assessment
of facilitated communication. Mental Retardation, 31,
49–59.
Wolpe, J. (1958). Psychotherapy by reciprocal inhibition.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Wood, J. D. (2004). The first Nobel prize for inte-
grated systems physiology: Ivan Petrovich Pavlov,
1904. Physiology, 19, 326–330. doi:10.1152/
physiol.00034.2004