A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of the Literature to Evaluate Potential Threats to Internal Validity in Probe Procedures for Chained Tasks

Jennifer L. Alexander, Katie A. Smith, Theologia Mataras, Sally B. Shepley, Kevin M. Ayres

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

13 Scopus citations

Abstract

The two most frequently used methods for assessing performance on chained tasks are single opportunity probes (SOPs) and multiple opportunity probes (MOPs). Of the two, SOPs may be easier and less time-consuming but can suppress actual performance. In comparison, MOPs can provide more information but present the risk of participants acquiring steps from probing alone. The authors reviewed and summarized 20 years of single-case design literature that evaluated methods of teaching chained tasks to individuals with disabilities. The authors identified a total of 33 studies. Individual tiers of multiple baseline and probe design graphs were analyzed to evaluate possible differences in participant responding within and between baseline and intervention conditions. Differences were evident, but none considered statistical when comparing data from SOPs and MOPs. The authors discuss possible publication bias as a reason for these findings and offer future research ideas to extend the literature on probe procedures.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)135-145
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Special Education
Volume49
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 29 2015

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2014, © Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2014.

Keywords

  • chained tasks
  • developmental disabilities
  • functional skills
  • probe procedures

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education
  • Rehabilitation

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of the Literature to Evaluate Potential Threats to Internal Validity in Probe Procedures for Chained Tasks'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this