Association for Behavior Analysis International

The methodology used by many studies in the social sciences and even behavioral science is severely lacking. This symposium works towards identifying flaws and offering suggestions for improving methodology in behavioral studies. The presentations in this symposium will include a critique on the methodology used in social science that includes composite variables and a lack of empirical evidence-based explanations. In addition they will offer a critique of a common method used for evaluating smarts, IQ tests, and offer an alternative behaviorally based method, behavioral developmental Stage. The effectiveness of instruments based on behavioral developmental Stage will evaluated in another presentation, as well as the benefit of using reinforcement and gamification to increase Stage of performance on these instruments. Finally a methodological study on charting behavioral progress will help to offer an improved manner to assess effectiveness of behavioral interventions. In total, the presentations in this symposium will help to foster a discussion on the methodologies used in behavioral analysis and beyond, and how they can be built and improved upon.

Even though social science and behavioral science are interconnected and both study organization of behaviors, there are some noteworthy differences between them in the level of scientific analysis and various dimensions of conduct. Social science is the study of the relationships between macro type variables, like culture and society, and micro variables such as how people behave in very well specified situations. Behavioral research, on the other hand, is the study of the dependent variable which is almost always some kind of relatively directly observable behavior. The independent variables are multiple single dimensionals that measure the environmental situation and other contingencies (Bush & Kennedy, 1985). There are some important distinctions between the two fields in terms of operationalization and the use of composite variables. Claims that social science is both theoretically informed and empirically driven, committed to developing evidence-based observations, descriptions and explanations through theoretical and empirical investigations does not hold true in the absence of true or quasi-independent non-composite variables. Social science can expand their social value by implementing research methods more like behavioral science. Further, behavioral science needs to expand its scope to take on social science issues.

Although individual charting can be an effective way to demonstrate progress, it does not allow for comparisons of effectiveness using traditional statistical standards. Due to the increasing need for evidence of effectiveness of interventions it is important that there be a way to compare interventions. Therefore, this paper proposes a method to aggregate individual data into group data. First, an individuals progress is documented along a behavioral-developmental sequence, using the Model of Hierarchical Complexity (MHC). Sequencing through MHC is important because acquisition of individual, possibly helpful behaviors does not always represent development. A behavioral aim can then be selected and behavior can be tracked depending on whether developmental tasks are completed. The effects of contingent reinforcement and training on correct response is analyzed. It is then demonstrated how to specify regression to estimate progress in a subdomain, and how to generalize findings to all participants. The implications and limitations of this method and future directions are discussed.