A Primer on Single-Case Research Designs: Contemporary Use and Analysis

Abstract

The overarching purpose of this article is to provide an introduction to the use of rigorous single-case research designs (SCRDs) in special education and related fields. Authors first discuss basic design types and research questions that can be answered with SCRDs, examine threats to internal validity and potential ways to control for and detect common threats, and provide guidelines for selection of specific designs. Following, contemporary standards regarding rigor, measurement, description, and outcomes are presented. Then, authors discuss data analytic techniques, differentiating rigor, positive outcomes, functional relations, and magnitude of effects.

Using Principles from Applied Behaviour Analysis to Address an Undesired Behaviour: Functional Analysis and Treatment of Jumping Up in Companion Dogs

“…There are many variations of SCRMs (e.g., reversal design, multi-element design, multiple baseline across behaviours, participants or settings, or changing criterion design), and each design can have its individual characteristics and uses [13]. Comprehensive descriptions of the various types of SCRMs can be found elsewhere (e.g., [16,28,32]).…”

What’s in a Click? The Efficacy of Conditioned Reinforcement in Applied Animal Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…The present meta-analysis aimed to quantify the effectiveness of clicker training as part of interventions to change animal behavior in applied settings, which was not reported in the literature previously. All the studies of relevance to this aim implemented SCRMs, which most likely could be the result of these methods being best suited to experimentally assess behavior change at the individual level (i.e., the causal relations between one or more IVs and DVs [ 84 , 113 ]).…”

“…One factor contributing to this finding may be that the majority of analyzed studies used such designs (n = 4), while only one study implemented a changing criterion design, and another study used a reversal design. Although it is well established that MBL designs have several advantages compared to other SCRM designs, such as withdrawal of the intervention or reversal to baseline is not required [ 84 , 113 ], the results have to be interpreted carefully due to the overall small number of studies included in the analysis.…”

Systematic Prompting of Peer-Related Social Behaviors in a Small Group Academic Instructional Context

“…At least three baseline probes were collected simultaneously across all dyads. In addition, three baseline probes were collected in subsequent tiers when the intervention began to allow for vertical analysis (Ledford, Barton, et al, 2019). The study met single-case research quality indicators (Horner et al, 2005) and design standards with reservations (Kratochwill, 2013) due to having three rather than five data points during one baseline condition.…”

“…During baseline, the implementer (a) reviewed the behavior expectations (i.e., materials stay on the table, quiet voices, and play for 10 min) with the participant dyad gesturing to the visuals; (b) introduced the toy set (e.g., “Today I brought dominoes, you can line them up to crash or stack them to build something”); (c) said “Let’s play” and started a 10-min timer; (d) provided verbal praise to each child at least once per session for following the behavior expectations; (e) presented at least five academic trials to the dyad using constant time delay (CTD); (f) prompted the children to clean up the play materials when the timer beeped; and (g) offered each child a choice of a sticker (e.g., animals, food, characters, vehicles) paired with verbal behavior specific praise for following the expectations and cleaning up. Target academic skills were taught using constant time delay (CTD; Doyle et al, 1990; Ledford, Lane, & Barton, 2019). In CTD, the researcher presented the academic stimulus, waited the delay, and then presented a verbal model (i.e., controlling prompt) of the correct response.…”