An Examination of Social Validity Within Single-Case Research With Students With Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

Abstract

Recently, single-case research has been recognized as an approach for establishing evidence-based practices (Horner et al., 2005;Kratochwill et al., 2010). As the implications of single-case research become increasingly far reaching and focused on socially meaningful outcomes, single-case researchers are expected to not only document a functional relation between manipulating the independent variable and change in the dependent variable, but also to demonstrate that the independent variable under investigation is perceived as socially acceptable and feasible by typical stakeholders (Horner et al., 2005). In other words, single-case researchers may be able to demonstrate sizable effects, but if the intervention is not well received by educators, students, and their families, it is unlikely that the intervention will be adopted or maintained.Applied behavior analysis, and more recently positive behavior support, emphasize the importance of valued clinical outcomes as an essential feature of behavioral research and practice (e.g., Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968;E. G. Carr et al., 2002). In his seminal article addressing the importance of social validity, Montrose Wolf (1978) argued that making socially meaningful contributions through research involves investigating the relationship between what is objectively measured and how it is perceived by its consumers. In the 1970s, the practice of asking participants to report what they think was novel and counterintuitive to the singular focus on directly observable and measurable behaviors that was typical in applied behavior analytic research. Nonetheless, it had become apparent that if practices were going to be adopted, they needed to be not only effective but also well regarded. To avoid making assumptions about the subjective judgments of consumers, researchers needed to begin using methods to assess social validity. Wolf (1978) therefore outlined what he termed three levels of social validity: (a) Are the specific behavioral goals really what society wants? (b) Do the ends justify the means? That is, do the participants, caregivers and other consumers consider the treatment procedures acceptable? and (c) Are the consumers satisfied with the results? . . . including any unpredicted ones? (p. 207) 490809R SEXXX10.

Social Validity in Early Language Interventions for Dual Language Learners: A Systematic Review of the Literature

“…Researchers across most identified studies used surveys or questionnaires to measure social validity. Snodgrass et al (2018) and Spear et al (2013) also noted the frequency of using these measures in their reviews of social validity assessment. Researcher-made questionnaires might not fully capture all relevant or important dimensions of social validity, including the cultural and linguistic appropriateness of the intervention content.…”

Social Skills Interventions for Students With Challenging Behavior

“…Acceptable reliability of measurement, or inter-observer agreement (IOA), must be collected for each participant and each dependent variable. Social validity data are also useful in determining the feasibility of an intervention (Spear, Strickland-Cohen, Romer, & Albin, 2013). Minimum acceptable values for percent agreement and Cohen's kappa are .80 and .60, respectively (Hartmann, 1977).…”

Applying Quality Indicators to Single‐Case Research Designs Used in Special Education: A Systematic Review

“…Although some of the quality indicators (e.g., dependent variables are measured repeatedly over time ) lend themselves to dichotomous measurement, others (e.g., the magnitude of change in the dependent variable resulting from the intervention is socially important ) may have inherent varying degrees of representation within the literature base. Social importance of an intervention is contingent on the unique perspective of the person responding (e.g., what participants identify to be socially important may be different from what teachers identify; Spear, Strickland‐Cohen, Romer, & Albin, ).…”

“…Because the WWC has established criteria fairly recently for evaluating single‐case experimental designs, only one article on the application of this evaluation method has been published (i.e., Maggin et al., ). However, articles on the use of the Horner Criteria continue to be published (e.g., Gardner, Spencer, Boelter, DuBard, & Jennett, ; Spear, Strickland‐Cohen, Romer, & Albin, ).…”