Part A: Introduction [10 marks]

1. In a single paragraph, set up the context for conducting this study. What was its purpose? In a second paragraph, add one extra thing not found in the article's introduction, such as a reference to some other related, perhaps even more updated study.

Part B: Methods [20 marks]

1. How were the target behaviours defined? Are these good definitions? Why or why not? (See Martin & Pear, 2019, p. 3, pp. 29-33.)
2. Name and describe the recording procedure used in this study. Be sure to refer to the textbook's definition of this recording procedure (Martin & Pear, 2019, pp. 33-34). Was it a good choice? Why or why not?
3. How was inter-observer reliability (IOR) calculated? Do the reported IOR values indicate reliable data? Why or why not? (See Martin & Pear, 2019, pp. 36-37.)
4. In a single paragraph, summarize the treatment procedure, emphasizing how the environment was arranged to produce the desired behaviour change.

Part C: Results [20 marks]

1. Refer to Figure 1 in the article. Name and describe the research design illustrated in the figure. Be sure to refer to the textbook's definition of this research design (Martin & Pear, 2019, pp. 43-49). How might this design rule out an otherwise uncontrolled variable?
2. Your textbook lists seven guidelines that are commonly used for inspecting data to judge whether or not the treatment affected the target behaviour (Martin & Pear, 2019, pp. 50-51). Apply each one of these guidelines to the data series in the top graph in Figure 1 to make the case for whether or not the treatment was effective for correct greetings.
3. Refer to Figure 1. Was there evidence for response generalization in this study? Explain. Be sure to refer to the textbook's definition of this term (Martin & Pear, 2019, p. 188). Note that two different responses were being tracked throughout the study.

Part D: Discussion [20 marks]

1. In a single paragraph, summarize the study.
2. How might social validity have been assessed in this study? (See Martin & Pear, 2019, pp. 51-52.)
3. Was behaviour maintenance assessed in this study? Describe at least two ways in which the researchers could have programmed for behaviour maintenance. (See Martin & Pear, 2019, p. 188, pp. 191-193.)

Part E: Analysis [10 marks]

1. Make the case for how the treatment procedure applied in this study is an example of positive reinforcement. (See Martin & Pear, 2019, pp. 66-67.)

Part F: Evaluation [20 marks]

1. Consider the eight factors influencing the effectiveness of positive reinforcement as described in your textbook (Martin & Pear, 2019, pp. 68-76). Evaluate the reinforcement procedure applied in this study as good or bad (or non-applicable) with respect to each one of these eight factors. If good, state why; if bad, state how the positive reinforcement procedure could be improved. Potentially pertinent to answering this question are the "Guidelines for the Effective Application of Positive Reinforcement" (Martin & Pear, 2019, pp. 78-79).

Article:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2741067/pdf/jaba-42-03-665.pdf