MSW 515 Week 5 AB Single-System Design Example

Course	MSW 515 Advanced Social Work Research
Week	5
Paper type	Single-system design write-up
Length	About 550 words, 5 pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Chamberlain University
Program	Master of Social Work (MSW)
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for MSW 515 Week 5

Single-System Design Write-Up for One Relative in the Family Education Course: Weekly Arguments About Medication Counted Through a Three-Week Baseline and Eight Course Weeks, Read for Level, Trend and Variability

Student Name

Chamberlain University

MSW 515: Advanced Social Work Research

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title names a target anyone could count and a baseline long enough to show a pattern, which is the foundation of the design.

The Target Behavior

R., 58, enrolled in the course because of nightly arguments with an adult son who has schizophrenia about whether the son has taken the day's medication. The target is the number of arguments about medication per week, recorded by R. on a tally card. An argument is counted when either person raises their voice or one leaves the room during a conversation about medication. R. and the worker agreed on that definition together, and R.'s spouse, who also keeps a tally on two weeks, recorded the same count both times.

What this page is doingDefining the behavior so a second observer recorded the same count shows it can be measured at all.

The Design and Its Notation

This is an AB design (Bloom et al., 2009). Phase A is the three weeks R. spent on the waiting list before the course; phase B is the eight course weeks. R.'s count is recorded every Sunday.

Table 1

Weekly Count of Arguments About Medication, Baseline and Course Phases

Week	Phase	Arguments about medication
1	A	6
2	A	7
3	A	6
4	B	6
5	B	5
6	B	6
7	B	4
8	B	3
9	B	3
10	B	2
11	B	2

Note. Note. Phase line falls between weeks 3 and 4. The figure plots the same values.

Reading the Data

Level: the baseline averaged about 6 arguments a week; the last four course weeks averaged about 2.5. Trend: the baseline was flat, so the later decline was not already under way when the course began. That matters, because a falling baseline would have given the course credit for a change that was happening anyway. Variability: the baseline varied by one argument a week, so a drop to 2 lies well outside its range. The change did not appear at once. Counts stayed near baseline for three weeks and fell after week 6, which is when the course covered communication during refusals.

What this page is doingReading level, trend and variability separately keeps the write-up from treating the graph as one before and after number.

What It Can and Cannot Show

An AB design leaves open the possibility that another event around week 7 produced the drop. R. reported that the son's psychiatrist adjusted the dose in week 8, after the decline began, so it is unlikely to explain the start, but it may have helped the later weeks.

R. also kept the tally faithfully only because the card was simple. A design that asked for a daily diary would likely have produced gaps in the weeks when R. was most stretched, which are the weeks that matter most.

What this page is doingNaming the limit of an AB design, and the one rival event, shows the worker read the data with care rather than hope.

What the Worker Does Next

Keep counting for four weeks after the course ends, as a follow-up phase. If arguments return to baseline, a booster session on the communication material is warranted; if the count holds near 2, R.'s gains appear durable. Durability is plausible: in the follow-up of the original trial, gains from the peer-taught course were still present six months after it ended (Lucksted et al., 2013).

References

Bloom, M., Fischer, J., & Orme, J. G. (2009). Evaluating practice: Guidelines for the accountable professional (6th ed.). Pearson.

Lucksted, A., Medoff, D., Burland, J., Stewart, B., Fang, L. J., Brown, C., Jones, A., Lehman, A., & Dixon, L. B. (2013). Sustained outcomes of a peer-taught family education program on mental illness. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 127(4), 279-286. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.2012.01901.x

The Chamberlain MSW 515 Week 5 instructions

In week 5 you evaluate practice with one client system using a single-system design. Choose one target behavior and define it so precisely that two observers would record the same thing, with a unit and a recording method. Collect a baseline before the intervention, long enough to show a trend rather than a single point. Then record through the intervention phase and present the data in a graph with a phase line where practice changed. State the design notation, such as AB or ABA. Read the data for level, trend and variability separately rather than as a single before and after difference. Say what the design can and cannot show, including any outside events. Close with what the worker will do next based on the data.

Inside the MSW 515 Week 5 example

The paper defines the target as arguments about medication per week, counted when either person raises their voice or leaves the room, and reports that a spouse's tally matched on two weeks. It names an AB design, citing Bloom et al. (2009), with three baseline weeks on the waiting list and eight course weeks. Table 1 lists the weekly counts from 6, 7 and 6 at baseline down to 2 in the last weeks. The reading section separates level, a fall from about 6 to 2.5; trend, a flat baseline; and variability, a baseline range of one. It notes the delay until week 7, when communication was taught. A limits section names the dose change in week 8 and the value of a simple card. The plan adds a follow-up phase, citing Lucksted et al. (2013).

Where the points sit in the MSW 515 Week 5 rubric

The target definition earns the first and largest block of credit, because a behavior nobody could count leaves nothing to graph. Faculty then look for a baseline with enough points to show a pattern; a missing or one-point baseline loses heavily. The graph should show both phases with a clear phase line, and the design notation should be stated. Credit for analysis depends on reading level, trend and variability separately, and on noticing whether a change was already under way before the intervention. Naming outside events and what the design cannot rule out shows judgment. A closing practice decision drawn from the data rounds out the grade. APA citations for the design source are expected.

MSW 515 Week 5 help: mistakes that cost points

The costliest error is a target nobody could count, such as improved communication or reduced anxiety without a unit. Next is a baseline that is missing or too short, so the paper claims an effect with nothing to compare. Many papers also read the graph as one before and after difference, ignoring trend and giving the intervention credit for a decline that had already begun. Some forget the phase line, or never say what the worker will do next. If your client and target are different, perhaps school absences, missed appointments or panic episodes, the steps are the same: define, baseline, record, read and decide. A write-up built for your case would include the data table behind the graph so a reader can check the reading.

Get a MSW-515 Week 5 example written to your instructions

Send the Week 5 instructions with the vignette your section issued, and a custom write-up with plotted data and its analysis comes back inside 24 to 48 hours, the first one free. Practicum material stays yours: the caseload, the hours and anything your field instructor signs are never drafted here.

More MSW 515 papers and MSW samples

MSW 515 Week 5 questions, answered

How many baseline points are enough?

Enough to see whether the behavior is already moving, and the assignment sets the minimum where it has one. The honest answer in practice settings is that baselines are often shorter than anyone would like, because a client system in distress cannot wait. What matters for marks is that you say what your baseline can and cannot support.

Is withdrawing the intervention ethical?

Often it is not, and saying so earns more than performing an ABAB because the textbook shows one. Removing help that appears to be working sits badly against self-determination and against the obligation to act in the client system's interest. Where a natural break occurs, a holiday or a missed block of sessions, that can be treated as a withdrawal phase and reported as what it was.

Can one case prove the intervention worked?

No, and the write-ups that say so plainly do better than the ones that overreach. A single-system design tells you whether this client system changed while you were doing something, which is enough to guide the next decision in the case and not enough to claim anything about the service. That distinction is usually worth marks on its own.

Where can I find a free MSW 515 Week 5 sample paper?

A complete MSW 515 Week 5 single-system design write-up tracking one relative's weekly arguments about medication is available here, with the data table and margin notes.

What baseline does the MSW 515 Week 5 sample use?

The three weeks the relative spent on the course waiting list, recorded on a tally card, which gave a flat baseline of about six arguments a week.