Search

With the objective of increasing the magnitude of treatment effects in behavioral health, there is steadily growing interest in tailoring assessments and interventions to better match individual needs. This aligns with the central idea that behavior can be adequately understood by considering the unique characteristics of the individual and context. Thus, data collected at an individual level provides critical evidence that can be used to inform health care decisions, improve treatment, or refine theories. Yet, the majority of research in behavioral health is based on group-level analyses. Recent developments in the field of singlecase experimental design (SCED) has provided new opportunities to utilize individual data. The present article provides a stateof-the art overview regarding key aspects of SCED, including a historical background to why and how SCED emerged, declined, and recently reemerged as well as methodological aspects such as design issues, challenges related to reliability and validity of repeated observations, innovations in visual and statistical analyses of individual data, strategies to deal with missing values, methodology to examine effect size, and approaches to summarize data from a large number of SCEDs using multilevel models and meta-analyses of replication data. Finally, the article discusses key concerns and actions needed to move the field forward. Keywords Single case experimental design * Idiosyncratic assessment * Treatment outcome * Effectiveness research, Introduction Psychology is the science of the individual, yet the bulk of available research data is derived from groups. Indeed, randomized controlled trials (RCT) are considered the gold standard for [...]

The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate an adapted cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) programme for treating anxiety in adolescents with acquired brain injury (ABI). Participants with ABI (12–19 years, N = 36) recruited from two sites were randomly allocated into either the intervention receiving 11 sessions of CBT (n = 19) or a wait-list control group (n = 17). The primary outcome was participants' anxiety and secondary outcomes were participants' depression, self-perception, and participation in daily activities, and parental stress, measured at (i) pre-intervention, (ii) immediately post-intervention, (iii) 2 months post-intervention and (iv) 6 months post-intervention. Repeated measures ANOVAs revealed significant treatment effects with the intervention group demonstrating greater improvements in self-reported anxiety, as well as self- and parent-reported depression from pre- to immediately post-treatment, compared to wait-list controls. Little evidence of treatment effects was found for the remaining outcomes (parent-reported anxiety, self-perception, daily participation, and parental stress). Significant improvement in self-reported anxiety found immediately post-treatment was maintained at two- and six-month follow-up. Findings provide support for adapted CBT as an effective means of reducing anxious and depressive symptomatology in adolescents with ABI compared to waitlist controls, and offer support for the use of these techniques to manage anxiety in this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Critical appraisal scales play an important role in evaluating methodological rigor (MR) of between-groups and single-case designs (SCDs). For intervention research this forms an essential basis for ascertaining the strength of evidence. Yet, few such scales provide classifications that take into account the differential weighting of items contributing to internal validity. This study aimed to develop an algorithm derived from the Risk of Bias in N-of-1 Trials (RoBiNT) Scale to classify MR and risk of bias magnitude in SCDs. The algorithm was applied to 46 SCD experiments. Two experiments (4%) were classified as Very High MR, 14 (30%) as High, 5 (11%) as Moderate, 2 (4%) as Fair, 2 (4%) as Low, and 21 (46%) as Very Low. These proportions were comparable to the What Works Clearinghouse classifications: 13 (28%) met standards, 8 (17%) met standards with reservations, and 25 (54%) did not meet standards. There was strong association between the two classification systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

Evidence supporting the direct therapeutic benefits of neuropsychological assessment (NPA) feedback relies mostly upon post-feedback consumer surveys. This randomized-controlled trial with cross-over investigated the benefits of NPA feedback in multiple sclerosis (MS). Seventy-one participants were randomly allocated to NPA with feedback or a "delayed-treatment" control group. The primary hypotheses were that NPA feedback would lead to improved knowledge of cognitive functioning and improved coping. Outcome instruments were administered by a research assistant blinded to group allocation. At 1-week post-NPA feedback there were no significant group-by-time interaction effects, indicating no improvement. But nor was there any significant deterioration in psychological wellbeing, despite most participants receiving "bad news" confirming cognitive impairment. At 1-month follow-up, within-subjects' analyses not only found no evidence of any delayed deterioration, but showed clinically significant improvement (small-medium effects) in perceived everyday cognitive functioning, MS self-efficacy, stress and depression. Despite lack of improvement in the RCT component at 1-week post-NPA feedback, the absence of deterioration at this time, in addition to significant improvements in perceived cognitive functioning, self-efficacy and mood at follow-up, together with high satisfaction ratings, all support NPA feedback as a safe psycho-educational intervention that is followed by improved psychological wellbeing over time. Trial registration: Uniform Trial Number identifier: U1111-1127-1585. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry identifier: ACTRN12612000161820. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Neuropsychologists are commonly asked practical questions about cognitive recovery in the first year following moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), however guiding evidence to provide answers is limited. The design of this longitudinal study rectifies methodological problems in the literature by taking serial assessments on a monthly basis from 3- to 12-months post-trauma in a severe TBI sample (n = 23), and using four alternate forms of a brief yet sensitive cognitive assessment battery. Fifteen variables sampling seven cognitive domains were used: orientation, attention, processing speed, executive function, memory, language and visuospatial function. A matched control group (n = 23) was used to establish equivalence of the four alternate forms (no statistically significant differences), document practice effects (no statistically significant differences), and provide a comparison standard of cognitive functioning against which to interpret the TBI recovery curves. Twenty-one of 23 consenting TBI participants continued with the serial assessments. Hierarchical growth model analyses typically revealed linear recovery trajectories over the first 12 months. However, by 12-months post-trauma, a significant proportion (up to 36%) had residual mild to severe impairments in various cognitive domains. These results provide detailed information about patterns of cognitive recovery that also have direct clinical application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]