Publishing Single-Case Research Design Studies That Do Not Demonstrate Experimental Control

Abstract

Demonstration of experimental control is considered a hallmark of high-quality single-case research design (SCRD). Studies that fail to demonstrate experimental control may not be published because researchers are unwilling to submit these papers for publication and journals are unlikely to publish negative results (i.e., the file drawer effect). SCRD studies comprise a large proportion of intervention research in special education. Consequently, the existing body of research, comprised mainly of studies that show experimental control, may artificially inflate efficacy of interventions. We discuss how experimental control evolved as the standard for high-quality SCRD; why, in the era of evidence-based practice, rigorous studies that fail to fully demonstrate experimental control are important to include in the body of published intervention research; the role of non-replication studies in discovering intervention boundaries; and considerations for researchers who wish to conduct and appraise studies that fail to yield full experimental control.

Evaluation of publication bias in response interruption and redirection: A meta‐analysis

“…To illustrate this, we found ages varied across studies and, also, while some participants had a sole diagnosis of ASD, others had concomitant diagnoses (e.g., global developmental delay; Gould et al, 2018). To address this limitation, future meta-analyses of RIRD could include procedures for evaluating the differential effects of RIRD according to participant characteristics (e.g., Ganz et al, 2012), or other potential boundary conditions, such as dosage, differing intervention agents, and implementation fidelity (Tincani & Travers, 2018). One promising technique to evaluate the effects of moderating variables or boundaries of treatment for meta-analyses is to employ multilevel models (Becraft et al, in press;Moeyaert et al, 2018).…”

“…While publication bias is believed to result from researchers' preference for studies that yield positive findings, there are likely other variables that moderate the degree of bias, including whether the study's findings are interesting or novel, are from a large or wellfunded study, and whether the study is of high methodological quality (Sutton et al, 2000). This latter concern is potentially problematic for the SCD research community, which has regarded experimental control accomplished through unambiguous and strong treatment effects as an intrinsic feature of high-quality research (Cooper et al, 2020;Kilgus et al, 2016;Tincani & Travers, 2018). For example, in their influential paper on quality standards for SCD, Horner et al (2005) asserted that three demonstrations of experimental control were an essential feature of a high-quality experiment.…”

Systematic Use of Visual Analysis for Assessing Outcomes in Single Case Design Studies

“…One way to synthesise results across a number of designs is to report a success rate (e.g., percentage of designs in which a functional relation is demonstrated divided by a total number of designs). Of course, this metric has similar problems as other synthesis methods, including meta-analysis-notably that inclusion of only peer-reviewed articles may increase the likelihood of over-estimating success (e.g., non-effects are less likely to be published; Shadish, Zelinsky, Vevea, & Kratochwill, 2016;Tincani & Travers, 2017). To minimise this risk, include grey literature in systematic syntheses (Ledford, Lane, & Tate, 2018).…”

How Business Strategies Enlivens Innovation of Selected Flour Milling Companies in Nigeria

“…The reasons for adopting this method is that it is easy to administer and data can be easily collated. This methods were utilize by Haseeb et al, (2019); McKenney and Reeves (2018); Tincani and Travers (2018). the unit of analysis the sample size of the study are the top and funtional managers of flour milling companies in Lagos state nigeria.…”