Recent literature suggests a revival of interest in single-case methodology (e.g., the randomised n-of-1 trial is now considered Level 1 evidence for treatment decision purposes by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine). Consequently, the availability of tools to critically appraise single-case reports is of great importance. We report on a major revision of our method quality instrument, the Single-Case Experimental Design Scale. Three changes resulted in a radically revised instrument, now entitled the Risk of Bias in N-of-1 Trials (RoBiNT) Scale: (i) item content was revised and increased to 15 items, (ii) two subscales were developed for internal validity (IV; 7 items) and external validity and interpretation (EVI; 8 items), and (iii) the scoring system was changed from a 2-point to 3-point scale to accommodate currently accepted standards. Psychometric evaluation indicated that the RoBiNT Scale showed evidence of construct (discriminative) validity. Inter-rater reliability was excellent, for pairs of both experienced and trained novice raters. Intraclass correlation coefficients of summary scores for individual (experienced) raters: ICC(TotalScore) = .90, ICC(IVSubscale) = .88, ICC(EVISubscale) = .87; individual (novice) raters: ICC(TotalScore)= .88, ICC(IVSubscale) = .87, ICC(EVISubscale) = .93; consensus ratings between experienced and novice raters (ICC(TotalScore) = .95, ICC(IVSubscale) = .93, ICC(EVISubscale) = .93. The RoBiNT Scale thus shows sound psychometric properties and provides a comprehensive yet efficient examination of important features of single-case methodology.

Rating scales that assess methodological quality of clinical trials provide a means to critically appraise the literature. Scales are currently available to rate randomised and non-randomised controlled trials, but there are none that assess single-subject designs. The Single-Case Experimental Design (SCED) Scale was developed for this purpose and evaluated for reliability. Six clinical researchers who were trained and experienced in rating methodological quality of clinical trials developed the scale and participated in reliability studies. The SCED Scale is an 11-item rating scale for single-subject designs, of which 10 items are used to assess methodological quality and use of statistical analysis. The scale was developed and refined over a 3-year period. Content validity was addressed by identifying items to reduce the main sources of bias in single-case methodology as stipulated by authorities in the field, which were empirically tested against 85 published reports. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using a random sample of 20/312 single-subject reports archived in the Psychological Database of Brain Impairment Treatment Efficacy (PsycBITE). Inter-rater reliability for the total score was excellent, both for individual raters (overall ICC = 0.84; 95% confidence interval 0.73-0.92) and for consensus ratings between pairs of raters (overall ICC = 0.88; 95% confidence interval 0.78-0.95). Item reliability was fair to excellent for consensus ratings between pairs of raters (range k = 0.48 to 1.00). The results were replicated with two independent novice raters who were trained in the use of the scale (ICC = 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.73-0.95). The SCED Scale thus provides a brief and valid evaluation of methodological quality of single-subject designs, with the total score demonstrating excellent inter-rater reliability using both individual and consensus ratings. Items from the scale can also be used as a checklist in the design, reporting and critical appraisal of single-subject designs, thereby assisting to improve standards of single-case methodology.

There is strong evidence for person-centered treatment of cognitive-communication disorders and use of instructional strategies such as errorless learning, metacognitive strategy training, and group treatment. Future studies should include tests of alternative service delivery models and development of participation-level outcome measures.

This study reports on current aphasia rehabilitation practices of speech-language pathologists in Australia. A 30-item web-based survey targeted approaches to aphasia rehabilitation, education, discharge, follow-up practices, counselling, interventions to improve communication access, community aphasia support services, and challenges to practice. One hundred and eighty-eight surveys were completed representing ~33% of the potential target population, with 58.5% urban and 41.5% rural participants across all states and territories. Respondents reported embracing a wide variety of approaches to aphasia rehabilitation; however, significant challenges in providing aphasia management in acute and residential care were identified. Low levels of knowledge and confidence were reported for both culturally and linguistically diverse clients and discourse approaches. Group and intensive services were under-utilized and clinicians reported inflexible funding models as major barriers to implementation. Few clinicians work directly in the community to improve communicative access for people with aphasia. Despite the chronic nature of aphasia, follow-up practices are limited and client re-entry to services is restricted. Counselling is a high frequency practice in aphasia rehabilitation, but clinicians report being under-prepared for the role. Respondents repeatedly cited lack of resources (time, space, materials) as a major challenge to effective service provision. Collective advocacy is required to achieve system level changes.