Search

Single-case intervention research design standards have evolved considerably over the past decade. These standards serve the dual role of assisting in single-case design (SCD) intervention research methodology and as guidelines for literature syntheses within a particular research domain. In a recent article (Kratochwill et al., 2021), we argued for a need to clarify key features of these standards. In this article we offer additional recommendations for SCD research and synthesis standards that have been either underdeveloped or missing in the conduct of research and in literature syntheses. Our recommendations are organized into three categories: expanding design standards, expanding evidence standards, and expanding the applications and consistency of SCDs. The recommendations we advance are for consideration for future standards, research design training, and they are especially important to guide the reporting of SCD intervention investigations as they enter the literature-synthesis phase of evidence-based practice initiatives., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

In this paper, we review some dimensions of feasibility research. Feasibility research focuses on the intervention process and addresses questions about whether and how an intervention can be evaluated and implemented. Feasibility studies are implemented prior to conducting an outcome-focused pilot study or full-scale evaluation to test the effectiveness of an intervention. We propose a feasibility framework that includes 10 possible dimensions to evaluate in a feasibility trial, including (a) recruitment capability, (b) data collection procedures, (c) design procedures, (d) social validity, (e) practicality, (f) integration into existing systems, (g) adaptability, (h) implementation, (i) effectiveness, and (j) generalizability. Among these dimensions we offer some priorities that researchers can consider in establishing feasibility. Although feasibility investigations can advance evidence-based practice in psychology and education, we review current challenges for researchers to consider when incorporating a feasibility protocol into their intervention research agenda., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

We developed a reporting guideline to provide authors with guidance about what should be reported when writing a paper for publication in a scientific journal using a particular type of research design: the single-case experimental design. This report describes the methods used to develop the Single-Case Reporting guideline In BEhavioural interventions (SCRIBE) 2016. As a result of 2 online surveys and a 2-day meeting of experts, the SCRIBE 2016 checklist was developed, which is a set of 26 items that authors need to address when writing about single-case research. This article complements the more detailed SCRIBE 2016 Explanation and Elaboration article (Tate et al., 2016 ) that provides a rationale for each of the items and examples of adequate reporting from the literature. Both these resources will assist authors to prepare reports of single-case research with clarity, completeness, accuracy, and transparency. They will also provide journal reviewers and editors with a practical checklist against which such reports may be critically evaluated. We recommend that the SCRIBE 2016 is used by authors preparing manuscripts describing single-case research for publication, as well as journal reviewers and editors who are evaluating such manuscripts. SCIENTIFIC ABSTRACT Reporting guidelines, such as the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement, improve the reporting of research in the medical literature (Turner et al., 2012 ). Many such guidelines exist and the CONSORT Extension to Nonpharmacological Trials (Boutron et al., 2008 ) provides suitable guidance for reporting between-groups intervention studies in the behavioural sciences. The CONSORT Extension for N-of-1 Trials (CENT 2015) was developed for multiple crossover trials with single individuals in the medical sciences (Shamseer et al., 2015 ; Vohra et al., 2015 ), but there is no reporting guideline in the CONSORT tradition for single-case research used in the behavioural sciences. We developed the Single-Case Reporting guideline In BEhavioural interventions (SCRIBE) 2016 to meet this need. This Statement article describes the methodology of the development of the SCRIBE 2016, along with the outcome of 2 Delphi surveys and a consensus meeting of experts. We present the resulting 26-item SCRIBE 2016 checklist. The article complements the more detailed SCRIBE 2016 Explanation and Elaboration article (Tate et al., 2016 ) that provides a rationale for each of the items and examples of adequate reporting from the literature. Both these resources will assist authors to prepare reports of single-case research with clarity, completeness, accuracy, and transparency. They will also provide journal reviewers and editors with a practical checklist against which such reports may be critically evaluated.

The published literature often underrepresents studies that do not find evidence for a treatment effect; this is often called publication bias. Literature reviews that fail to include such studies may overestimate the size of an effect. Only a few studies have examined publication bias in single-case design (SCD) research, but those studies suggest that publication bias may occur. This study surveyed SCD researchers about publication preferences in response to simulated SCD results that show a range of small to large effects. Results suggest that SCD researchers are more likely to submit manuscripts that show large effects for publication and are more likely to recommend acceptance of manuscripts that show large effects when they act as a reviewer. A nontrivial minority of SCD researchers (4% to 15%) would drop 1 or 2 cases from the study if the effect size is small and then submit for publication. This article ends with a discussion of implications for publication practices in SCD research., (© 2016 Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior.)

Unlabelled: We developed a reporting guideline to provide authors with guidance about what should be reported when writing a paper for publication in a scientific journal using a particular type of research design: the single-case experimental design. This report describes the methods used to develop the Single-Case Reporting guideline In BEhavioural interventions (SCRIBE) 2016. As a result of 2 online surveys and a 2-day meeting of experts, the SCRIBE 2016 checklist was developed, which is a set of 26 items that authors need to address when writing about single-case research. This article complements the more detailed SCRIBE 2016 Explanation and Elaboration article (Tate et al., 2016) that provides a rationale for each of the items and examples of adequate reporting from the literature. Both these resources will assist authors to prepare reports of single-case research with clarity, completeness, accuracy, and transparency. They will also provide journal reviewers and editors with a practical checklist against which such reports may be critically evaluated. We recommend that the SCRIBE 2016 is used by authors preparing manuscripts describing single-case research for publication, as well as journal reviewers and editors who are evaluating such manuscripts., Scientific Abstract: Reporting guidelines, such as the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement, improve the reporting of research in the medical literature (Turner et al., 2012). Many such guidelines exist and the CONSORT Extension to Nonpharmacological Trials (Boutron et al., 2008) provides suitable guidance for reporting between-groups intervention studies in the behavioral sciences. The CONSORT Extension for N-of-1 Trials (CENT 2015) was developed for multiple crossover trials with single individuals in the medical sciences (Shamseer et al., 2015; Vohra et al., 2015), but there is no reporting guideline in the CONSORT tradition for single-case research used in the behavioral sciences. We developed the Single-Case Reporting guideline In BEhavioural interventions (SCRIBE) 2016 to meet this need. This Statement article describes the methodology of the development of the SCRIBE 2016, along with the outcome of 2 Delphi surveys and a consensus meeting of experts. We present the resulting 26-item SCRIBE 2016 checklist. The article complements the more detailed SCRIBE 2016 Explanation and Elaboration article (Tate et al., 2016) that provides a rationale for each of the items and examples of adequate reporting from the literature. Both these resources will assist authors to prepare reports of single-case research with clarity, completeness, accuracy, and transparency. They will also provide journal reviewers and editors with a practical checklist against which such reports may be critically evaluated., (© 2016 The Author(s). Reprinted from: Tate RL, Perdices M, Rosenkoetter U, et al. The Single-Case Reporting Guideline In BEhavioural Interventions (SCRIBE) 2016 Statement. Arch Sci Psychol. 2016;4:1–9.)

In this commentary, we add to the spirit of the articles appearing in the special series devoted to meta- and statistical analysis of single-case intervention-design data. Following a brief discussion of historical factors leading to our initial involvement in statistical analysis of such data, we discuss: (a) the value added by including statistical-analysis recommendations in the What Works Clearinghouse Standards for single-case intervention designs; (b) the importance of visual analysis in single-case intervention research, along with the distinctive role that could be played by single-case effect-size measures; and (c) the elevated internal validity and statistical-conclusion validity afforded by the incorporation of various forms of randomization into basic single-case design structures. For the future, we envision more widespread application of quantitative analyses, as critical adjuncts to visual analysis, in both primary single-case intervention research studies and literature reviews in the behavioral, educational, and health sciences., (Copyright © 2014 Society for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The purpose of this article is to provide some perspectives on Lilienfeld, Ammirati, and David's (2012) paper on distinguishing science from pseudoscience in school psychology. In many respects their work represents an intervention for "grandiose bragging," a problem that has occasionally occurred when various non-evidence-based or discredited interventions receive sensationalized positive endorsement for adoption in school psychology practice. In this paper, the implications of the Lilienfeld et al. work are discussed within the context of the scientist-practitioner gap, scientific thinking and evaluation of scientific thinking, and negative results research. The authors have advanced our thinking on evidence-based practices in school psychology and education., (Copyright © 2011 Society for the Study of School Psychology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

We argue in this article that there are conditions in which publication of negative results can make a useful contribution. Three small-scale examinations of journal publication criteria for publishing negative results were conducted. We first reviewed 29 journals from education and school/counseling psychology to assess author submission guidelines for reporting negative results. We then reviewed the most recent issue of each of the 29 journals to determine whether articles reporting negative results were being published. Finally, we surveyed the editors of the 29 journals to examine conditions in which they perceived it appropriate to publish articles that did not demonstrate experimental effects. Results of these studies indicate that currently only one of the 29 journals provides formal guidance to authors about submitting papers with negative results. Two articles published in the 29 journals in their last issue of 2016 contained only negative results. And, of the 60% of the editors who responded to our survey, 96% indicated there were conditions in which publication of negative results was appropriate. In conclusion, we propose situations in which studies reporting negative results would make a valuable contribution.

The central roles of science in the field of remedial and special education are to (a) identify basic laws of nature and (b) apply those laws in the design of practices that achieve socially valued outcomes. The scientific process is designed to allow demonstration of specific (typically positive) outcomes, and to assist in the attribution of those outcomes to controlled variables. Although growing recognition is being given to the importance of replication in this process, equal consideration should be given to the function of publishing studies that document negative (or null) results. In this manuscript, we outline the features of negative results in educational and psychological single-case intervention research. We also discuss the assessment, methodological, and statistical dimensions of negative results that should be considered when reporting negative results. The importance of replication studies (direct, systematic, and clinical) is also discussed within the context of negative-results research.

Recent studies have suggested single case design (SCD) intervention research is subject to publication bias, wherein studies are more likely to be published if they possess large or statistically significant effects and use rigorous experimental methods. The nature of SCD and the purposes for which it might be used could suggest that large effects and rigorous methods should not always be expected. The purpose of the current paper is to propose and describe a theory-driven cycle of SCD intervention research. The proposed SCD-specific cycle serves several purposes including (a) defining the purposes for which SCD research might be adopted, (b) specifying the types of evidence to be collected in establishing an intervention for applied use, and (c) illustrating the phases of SCD-based intervention research (i.e., development, efficacy, effectiveness, contextualization, and implementation). The proposed model is intended to serve as an intermediary between theory and research, facilitating the consideration of theory-driven expectations when selecting particular SCDs (e.g., reversal, multiple baseline) and interpreting SCD data. Next steps and future directions for research are included.

We developed a reporting guideline to provide authors with guidance about what should be reported when writing a paper for publication in a scientific journal using a particular type of research design: the single-case experimental design. This report describes the methods used to develop the Single-Case Reporting guideline In BEhavioural interventions (SCRIBE) 2016. As a result of 2 online surveys and a 2-day meeting of experts, the SCRIBE 2016 checklist was developed, which is a set of 26 items that authors need to address when writing about single-case research. This article complements the more detailed SCRIBE 2016 Explanation and Elaboration article (Tate et al., 2016) that provides a rationale for each of the items and examples of adequate reporting from the literature. Both these resources will assist authors to prepare reports of single-case research with clarity, completeness, accuracy, and transparency. They will also provide journal reviewers and editors with a practical checklist against which such reports may be critically evaluated. We recommend that the SCRIBE 2016 is used by authors preparing manuscripts describing single-case research for publication, as well as journal reviewers and editors who are evaluating such manuscripts.

In this article, we respond to Wolery's critique of the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) pilot "Standards," which were developed by the current authors. We do so to provide additional information and clarify some points previously summarized in this journal. We also respond to several concerns raised by Maggin, Briesch, and Chafouleas after they applied the "Standards" to a single-case design synthesis published in this journal. The overall purpose of this response is to clarify what the "Standards" are designed to accomplish and to offer our views about future revisions.

In this four-investigation Monte Carlo simulation study, we examined the properties of nonparametric randomization and permutation statistical tests applied to single-case ABAB...AB and alternating treatment designs based on either systematically alternating or randomly determined phase assignments. Contrary to previous admonitions, when appropriately conceptualized nonparametric tests were conducted the systematic designs maintained Type I error rates at or less than their nominal values whenever either no or positive autocorrelation was present in the series. Statistical power for all designs varied as a function of both the number of phases and the number of observations per phase. It was concluded that to increase methodological rigor and statistical precision in the face of autocorrelation, (a) whenever possible, researchers should adopt a randomization scheme in assigning the orders in which the A and B phases are administered and (b) in situations where randomized phase assignment is not feasible, researchers should adopt a systematic phase assignment scheme consisting of individually alternating A and B observations, with a cost of sacrificing some degree of statistical power. Implications for single-case intervention research in school psychology are discussed. (Contains 2 tables and 15 figures.)

The purposes of this paper are to (a) propose an operational standard for defining a "practice," (b) encourage development of professional standards for visual and statistical analysis of single-case research, and (c) propose a standard for using single-case research results to identify practices that are "evidence-based." These topics are not new for behavioral researchers, but they become critical for the larger conversations now occurring among researchers, policy makers, and educators working to implement effective practices in psychology and education.

In recent years, single-case designs have increasingly been used to establish an empirical basis for evidence-based interventions and techniques in a variety of disciplines, including psychology and education. Although traditional single-case designs have typically not met the criteria for a randomized controlled trial relative to conventional multiple-participant experimental designs, there are procedures that can be adopted to create a randomized experiment in this class of experimental design. Our two major purposes in writing this article were (a) to review the various types of single-case design that have been and can be used in psychological and educational intervention research and (b) to incorporate randomized experimental schemes into these designs, thereby improving them so that investigators can draw more valid conclusions from their research. For each traditional single-case design type reviewed, we provide illustrations of how various forms of randomization can be introduced into the basic design structure. We conclude by recommending that traditional single-case intervention designs be transformed into more scientifically credible randomized single-case intervention designs whenever the research conditions under consideration permit. (Contains 8 footnotes, 18 tables, and 4 figures.)

A review of the conceptual and methodological considerations in assessment and treatment of children's fears and phobias is presented. Areas discussed include the definitional problems in the field, analogue and clinical research, experimental research methods, and criteria for the evaluation of outcome in fear and phobia research. (Author/DWH)

The authors describe some of the applications of time-series, its advantages in applied work, and methodological issues of concern to researchers. (Author/SJL)