Different randomized multiple-baseline models for different situations: A practical guide for single-case intervention researchers

Levin, Joel R.; Ferron, John M.

doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2021.03.003

Cited by 15 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, two of the four participating data series of the multiple-baseline design were implemented concurrently; all four participating bunks received the intervention sequentially during the summer of 2019, whereas Bunk C and Bunk D implemented the intervention concurrently. The combination of the use of randomization procedures, as well as the concurrent implementation for two of the data series strengthen the internal validity and scientific credibility of this design (Levin & Ferron, 2021).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Although a concurrent design can better establish a functional relation, a nonconcurrent multiple-baseline design is particularly useful for field-based research where other designs may not be possible (Carr, 2005). To address limitations of the research design, the researchers used case randomization and intervention randomization (Levin & Ferron, 2021); the researchers determined a priori the baseline duration for each series and randomly assigned bunks to each series upon recruitment (Watson & Workman, 1981). Furthermore, two of the four participating data series of the multiple-baseline design were implemented concurrently; all four participating bunks received the intervention sequentially during the summer of 2019, whereas Bunk C and Bunk D implemented the intervention concurrently.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This study used single-case research design, specifically a randomized nonconcurrent multiple-baseline design across bunks to evaluate the effect of the Super Clean-Up Game on campers' chore-related and prosocial behaviors. A randomized nonconcurrent multiple-baseline design was chosen due to limitations of the camp structure where simultaneous implementation across these various groups would not be possible (Levin & Ferron, 2021). During this summer camp program, groups come for sequential sessions and, due to staffing structures, it was not feasible to simultaneously enroll all groups in the intervention.…”

Section: Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Super Clean-Up Game: Increasing Productivity and Prosocial Engagement Among Youth at a Residential Summer Camp

Miller

Bloomfield

Fauvel

et al. 2022

Behavioral Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Good Behavior Game (GBG) is a behavior intervention typically used in traditional classroom settings. This study tested the effectiveness of the Super Clean-Up Game, a modified version of the GBG, for youth with disabilities at a residential summer camp to increase productivity and strengthen the social skills of youth with disabilities. The Super Clean-Up Game was implemented at a residential summer camp for youth with social, emotional, and behavioral challenges, with four bunks of campers ( N = 24, 100% boys, ages 10–15 years old) using a randomized nonconcurrent multiple-baseline design. There was an increase in the percent of chore completion and peer helping behavior between the baseline and intervention phases in all four bunks. Results provide preliminary evidence that the Super Clean-Up Game is an effective behavior intervention at a residential summer camp for youth with social, emotional, and behavioral challenges. Future studies may consider modifying the Super Clean-Up Game for use in other contexts, such as classrooms or group homes.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Super Clean-Up Game: Increasing Productivity and Prosocial Engagement Among Youth at a Residential Summer Camp

Miller

Bloomfield

Fauvel

et al. 2022

Behavioral Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Carr (2005) argued that the nonconcurrent variation of the design allows for replication, but not "verification", of the intervention effect, a primary characteristic of the conventional multiple-baseline design. In contrast, Levin and Ferron (2021) contended that: (1) differentiating between concurrent and nonconcurrent MBDs is not always a cut-and-dried process; and (2) with comparable forms of relevant randomization built into the two designs, unwanted internal-validity-confounding variables are comparably controlled. Slocum et al (2022) have recently noted that three primary threats to internal validity must be addressed in MBDs, namely, Campbell and Stanley's (1966) "maturation" (including practice and fatigue effects), testing and session experience, and coincidental events (primarily "history" effects).…”

Section: Nonconcurrent Mbdmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nonconcurrent Multiple-Baseline and Multiple-Probe Designs in Special Education Research: A Systematic Review of Current Practice and Future Directions

Morin¹,

Lindström²,

Kratochwill³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although quality guidelines for single-case intervention research emphasize the importance of concurrent baselines in multiple-baseline and multiple-probe designs, nonconcurrent variations on these designs persist in the research literature. This study describes a systematic review of special education intervention studies (k = 406) between 1988-2020 that report using nonconcurrent multiple-baseline or multiple-probe designs to test interventions for individuals with disabilities ages 21 years and younger. We coded and synthesized study characteristics pertaining to participants, settings, interventions, data reporting, and contextual factors. Findings indicate the prevalence of nonconcurrent designs for intervention studies in a variety of settings addressing social and communication needs of individuals with disabilities. We discuss implications for research and practice and offer suggestions for improving the validity of nonconcurrent designs. A PRISMA-compliant abstract is available at https://osf.io/sdnj5/?view_only=f386b1fe5f14430a8d63fceed293718d.

show abstract

“…The ICN's resources webpage provides lists of useful guidelines, books, websites, analysis resources, e-courses, literature reviews, and special journal issues that cover various aspects of the design, conduct, and analysis of SCDs ( www.nof1sced.org/resources ). Several members of the ICN have published accessible “how-to” guides [ 57 , 58 ] and tutorial papers [ [59] , [60] , [61] ] to foster increased knowledge and skills in relation to the design and analysis of various types of SCDs. The ICN also offers an advice service to answer specific queries about how to design, conduct, and analyse SCDs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Establishment of an International Collaborative Network for N-of-1 Trials and Single-Case Designs

Nikles

Onghena

Vlaeyen

et al. 2021

Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article we briefly examine the unique features of Single-Case Designs (SCDs) (studies in a single participant), their history and current trends, and real-world clinical applications. The International Collaborative Network for N-of-1 Trials and Single-Case Designs (ICN) is a formal collaborative network for individuals with an interest in SCDs. The ICN was established in 2017 to support the SCD scientific community and provide opportunities for collaboration, a global communication channel, resource sharing and knowledge exchange. In May 2021, there were more than 420 members in 31 countries. A member survey was undertaken in 2019 to identify priorities for the ICN for the following few years. This article outlines the key priorities identified and the ICN's progress to date in these key areas including network activities (developing a communications strategy to increase awareness, collecting/sharing a comprehensive set of resources, guidelines and tips, and incorporating the consumer perspective) and scientific activities (writing position papers and guest editing special journal issues, exploring key stakeholder perspectives about SCDs, and working to streamline ethical approval processes for SCDs). The ICN provides a practical means to engage with this methodology through membership. We encourage clinicians, researchers, industry, and healthcare consumers to learn more about and conduct SCDs, and to join us in our mission of using SCDs to improve health outcomes for individuals and populations.

show abstract

Different randomized multiple-baseline models for different situations: A practical guide for single-case intervention researchers

Cited by 15 publications

References 31 publications

The Super Clean-Up Game: Increasing Productivity and Prosocial Engagement Among Youth at a Residential Summer Camp

The Super Clean-Up Game: Increasing Productivity and Prosocial Engagement Among Youth at a Residential Summer Camp

Nonconcurrent Multiple-Baseline and Multiple-Probe Designs in Special Education Research: A Systematic Review of Current Practice and Future Directions

Establishment of an International Collaborative Network for N-of-1 Trials and Single-Case Designs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About