ABA Inside Track – Episode 334: The Changing Criterion Design

Release Date: January 28, 2026
Host(s): Robert Perry Crews, Jackie McDonald, Diana Perry Cruz

Episode Overview

This episode of ABA Inside Track dives into the nuances of the Changing Criterion Design (CCD), an experimental design “unicorn” in behavior analysis. The hosts clarify myths, explore the design’s clinical and research applications, and critique contemporary and historical studies using CCD (including the range-bound variant). The discussion balances practical “best practices” with an honest appraisal of the design’s strengths and weaknesses.

Main Discussion Points and Insights

1. Introduction and Framing of Changing Criterion Design

• CCD is described as rare in research ("the unicorn of experimental designs" - Diana, 01:48), but useful in certain clinical contexts.
• It is best suited for increasing or decreasing a behavior that already exists in someone's repertoire, rather than teaching a new skill.
  • “If you are trying to increase or decrease something that's already happening…it's a very utilized design.” – Jackie (02:04)
• Host banter establishes the tone: playful, collegial, and occasionally tongue-in-cheek.

2. Core Features of Changing Criterion Design

• CCD Structure: Involves “stepwise marks and we manipulate some dimension of a single behavior that's already...in an individual's repertoire” – Robert (05:35).
  • Used for gradual behavior change—useful where big jumps might be unsafe or unwieldy.
• Experimental Rigor: Strong experimental control is a challenge; must demonstrate that behavioral changes cluster precisely around each newly set criterion.
  • “You're not just looking to change behavior in a direction... [but] having behavior adhere or cluster around a particular numeric criterion.” – Diana (09:08)
• Common uses: Behavior shaping in weightlifting, exercise, or decreasing unwanted habits.

3. Strengthening Experimental Control

• Bidirectionality (Mini-Reversals): Temporarily decrease criteria after increases (or vice versa) to demonstrate control (10:21).
  • "Those mini reversals are also called bidirectionality." – Jackie (11:18)
• Varying Phase Lengths & Magnitude: Not all steps should be the same size or last the same number of sessions.
• Avoiding Response Restriction: Must allow opportunity for behavior exceeding or falling short of the criterion, or else it weakens the design (16:02).
  • “You don't...rip away the worksheet when five are done, because then all that's happened is you've taken away the opportunity for additional responding.” – Diana (16:02)

4. Variants of CCD

• Range-Bound Changing Criterion (RBCC): Introduced by McDougall (13:15). Each “step” is a range, not a single value.
  • Offers autonomy and prevents excessive leaps.
• Distributed Criterion Design: Manipulates one behavior across contexts or multiple behaviors in one context. Considered “weak” by the literature and by the hosts—“It’s a worse [practice] and we'll leave it at that.” – Diana (14:24)

5. Best Practices (Klein et al., 2017) and Survey Findings

• Choose the first criterion based on:
  • Mean baseline performance,
  • Extremes in baseline, or
  • Professional judgment (favored).
  • “The authors actually say that's their [professional judgment] favorite because it's the most sensitive to the ability of the individual...” – Robert (17:12)
• At least 2–3 criterion changes are necessary (“shifts”).
• Mini-reversals and varied change magnitudes strengthen the design.
• Survey of studies (pre-2014): Only 25% showed strong experimental control. Common issues—few mini-reversals, lack of phase variability, and restricted responding.

6. Critical Reflections & Recommendations

• Include preference assessments and functional assessments—many studies skip these.
• Involve participants in setting their own criteria.
• Use social validity measures and technology/apps for easier implementation.
  • “So many apps that could like do this for you.” – Diana (24:48)

Example Studies

A. Classic CCD: DeLuca & Holborn (1992) – Exercise in Boys

[32:35–43:02]

• Purpose: Increase stationary cycling rate among “obese” and “non-obese” boys with individual stepwise VR reinforcement schedules.
• Procedure:
  • Baseline → Gradual 15% VR-increment steps → Reversal to baseline (“mini-reversal”) → Return to prior VR.
  • Used preference assessments for backup reinforcers (toys).
  • Each child could cycle as long as they liked (up to 30 mins).
  • Notable finding: “Boys asked if their friends could participate because they found it fun. They asked if they could bicycle longer.” – Jackie (36:38)
  • Discussion includes social validity and practical implications, but the design undermined by a ceiling effect—all engaged to the maximum allowed.
  • Hosts critique terminology and participant labeling in the original article.

B. Modern RBCC: Brady et al. (2022) – Decision-Making in College Students with IDD

[43:54–59:05]

• Purpose: Teach students with IDD/ASD to generate reasons for or against specific job opportunities using mnemonics, remote coaching, and RBCC.
• Procedure:
  • Sessions via Zoom using the ELSE mnemonic: Education, Like, Skills, Earnings.
  • Range-bound targets for number of responses (e.g., “Tell me 4 to 6 reasons…”), with ranges chosen based on professional surveys and tailored to participants.
  • Included mini-reversals (bidirectionality), generalization, and follow-up.
  • Participant choice was incorporated.
• Outcome:
  • Participants increased reasons generated, maintained plus generalized responding.
  • Social validity measures were high from all parties involved.
• Host Reflection: “I love the range actually. It gives you…set boundaries of when it's appropriate versus when it's not.” – Jackie (58:31)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On CCD’s Rarity:
  • “The only people who want to use changing criterion designs are grad students. It's their first study ever, and they're like, I'm going to do this probably.” – Robert, (01:57)
• On Rigor:
  • “I feel like I'm fighting for the changing criterion against you, too.” – Jackie, (02:45)
• On Bidirectionality:
  • “Those mini reversals are also called bidirectionality… that's what you're demonstrating.” – Jackie & Robert, (11:18–11:22)
• Social Validity in Practice:
  • “[The boys] all participated in a track and field event at school... one did really well and went to the state championships…the discussion was like very heartfelt.” – Jackie, (41:15)
• On Terminology:
  • “I always thought the plural of a changing criterion design would be...criteria. It is not. It is criterions.” – Robert, (29:44)
• On Participant Experience:
  • “The boys were like, can we invite our friends and can we ride more for more points?” – Jackie, (36:38)
• On the Range Bound Feature:
  • “It gives you like a hot place…like, you…know, like you…” – Jackie, (58:31)
• On Applied Value:
  • “This is helpful for clinicians when they're thinking about behavior management programs…you can make small successive changes, and that's okay.” – Jackie, (62:30)

Key Timestamps

| Segment | Timestamp | |--------------------------------------------|---------------| | Defining CCD & Rarity | 01:48–04:49 | | Components & Experimental Logic | 05:35–10:21 | | Best Practices Discussion | 14:24–25:40 | | Klein et al. Survey Findings | 18:24–24:39 | | Practical App Discussion | 25:29–27:33 | | Classic Cycling Study Review | 32:35–43:02 | | Range Bound CCD Example | 43:54–59:05 | | Final Thoughts / Dissemination Station | 59:53–62:49 |

Engaging Takeaways

• CCD is underused not due to lack of utility, but due to high demands on experimental control and lack of robust reporting in the literature.
• Range-bound versions offer flexibility, autonomy, and “hot spot” for more realistic behavior measurement.
• Active, participant-driven goal setting, preference assessment, and social validity measures are often neglected but recommended.
• Real-world applications (e.g., exercise, pre-employment decision-making) benefit from stepwise, individualized targets.
• The field would benefit from stronger, more consistent implementation and reporting of CCD and its variants.

Memorable Section (“Pairings” with Other Content)

Diana’s Pairings for Further Listening:

• Episode 111: Behavior Analytic Language
• Episode 113: Visual Inspection of Data
• Episode 146: Elopement with Dr. Megan Boyle (strong CCD example)
• Episode 239: Behavioral Instruction with Dr. Kendra Guinness
• Episode 256: Celeration Charts Explained with Jared Van

Suggested “Snack” Pairing:
“Chai lattes and cigarettes”—inside joke about CCD applications in reducing habitual behaviors (65:48).

Concluding Thoughts

The episode provides a comprehensive, insightful, and often humorous look at the changing criterion design’s role in experimental and applied behavior analysis. Listeners are encouraged to experiment with CCD, embrace best practices (as currently defined), and not be afraid to “do better than 75%” of the published literature through careful design and patient-centered application.