Analysis of Differences Across Two Unaffiliated Systematic Reviews Using What Works Clearinghouse Single-Case Design Standards

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 143-160
Author(s):  
Collin Shepley ◽  
Justin D. Lane ◽  
Melinda J. Ault
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Single Case ◽  
Single Case Design ◽  
Design Standards ◽  
Topic Area ◽  
System Of Least Prompts ◽  
What Works ◽  
What Works Clearinghouse ◽  
Case Design

The system of least prompts response prompting procedure has a rich history in special education research and practice. Recently, two independent systematic reviews were conducted to determine if the system of least prompts met criteria to be classified as an evidence-based practice. Both reviews used single-case design standards developed by What Works Clearinghouse to evaluate the rigor and effects of studies; however, findings and implications varied significantly across reviews. We examined the data supporting each review and discuss how two reviews on the same topic area using the same standards for evaluating studies could arrive at different conclusions. Results indicate that varying search parameters, visual analysis protocols, and the flexibility allotted by the design standards may have contributed to differences. We discuss the importance of multiple literature reviews on the same topic area with regard to replication research in special education. In addition, we highlight the necessity of open data in such reviews. Finally, we recommend how practitioners and researchers should collectively interpret the differing findings and conclusions from the reviews examining the system of least prompts.

Estimating the Impact of Design Standards on the Rigor of a Subset of Single-Case Research

2020 ◽  
pp. 104420732093404 ◽  
Author(s):  
Collin Shepley ◽  
Kathleen N. Zimmerman ◽  
Kevin M. Ayres
Keyword(s):  
Single Case ◽  
Single Case Design ◽  
Design Standards ◽  
Case Research ◽  
What Works ◽  
What Works Clearinghouse ◽  
Single Case Research ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Case Design

The implementation of research-based practices by teachers in public school classrooms is required under federal law as expressed in the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. To aid teachers in identifying such practices, researchers conduct systematic reviews of the educational literature. Although recent attention has been given to changes in the quality of these reviews, there has been minimal discussion about changes in the quality of the studies that comprise them. Specifically, to what extent have educational policies leading to the creation of experimental design standards resulted in a change in the rigor of educational research? Using a subset of the single-case literature commonly published in special education journals, we estimate the impact of What Works Clearinghouse single-case design standards on the trend in the rigor of single-case studies using a comparative interrupted time series framework. Within this subset of single-case studies, our estimation strategy did not detect a change in the trend of the rigor of single-case research following the establishment of What Works Clearinghouse single-case design standards. Implications are discussed for practitioners and researchers. Study data, syntax, and supplemental materials are available for public use at https://osf.io/xp7wv/.

A Systematic Review of Student Mediated Math Interventions for Students with Emotional or Behavior Disorders

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corey Peltier ◽  
Kristi L. Morin ◽  
Kimberly Vannest ◽  
April Haas ◽  
Joshua Pulos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Visual Analysis ◽  
Single Case ◽  
Single Case Design ◽  
Design Standards ◽  
Math Interventions ◽  
What Works ◽  
Weak Evidence ◽  
What Works Clearinghouse ◽  
Case Design ◽  
Academic Content

Students identified with emotional or behavioral disorders (EBD) display deficits across academic content areas, most notably in mathematics. We reviewed research on student-mediated math interventions for students with EBD. A total of 19 studies published between 1968 and 2019 met inclusion criteria, with 24 of 32 cases meeting the What Works Clearinghouse Pilot Single-Case Design Standards (Version 4.0) with or without reservations. Participants included 51 students identified with EBD, ages 8 to 16 years old. Results from visual analysis revealed 0 cases demonstrated strong evidence, 11 cases demonstrated moderate evidence, and 21 cases demonstrated weak evidence of intervention effects. The omnibus Tau-U was 74.35% (CI95 = 64.2% to 84.4%), representing data from 17 studies including 46 students. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

The What Works Clearinghouse Single-Case Design Pilot Standards

2014 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 145-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
John H. Hitchcock ◽  
Robert H. Horner ◽  
Thomas R. Kratochwill ◽  
Joel R. Levin ◽  
Samuel L. Odom ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Single Case ◽  
Single Case Design ◽  
What Works ◽  
What Works Clearinghouse ◽  
Case Design

What Works Clearinghouse Standards and Generalization of Single-Case Design Evidence

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 459-469 ◽  
Author(s):  
John H. Hitchcock ◽  
Thomas R. Kratochwill ◽  
Laura C. Chezan
Keyword(s):  
Single Case ◽  
Single Case Design ◽  
What Works ◽  
What Works Clearinghouse ◽  
Case Design

Bug-in-Ear eCoaching: Impacts on Novice Early Childhood Special Education Teachers

2017 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 87-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christan Grygas Coogle ◽  
Jennifer R. Ottley ◽  
Naomi L. Rahn ◽  
Sloan Storie
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Early Childhood ◽  
Special Education Teachers ◽  
Single Case ◽  
Communication Strategies ◽  
Early Childhood Special Education ◽  
Single Case Design ◽  
Communication Difficulties ◽  
Multiple Probe ◽  
Case Design

A multiple-probe, single-case design was used to determine the effects of bug-in-ear eCoaching on teachers’ use of two targeted naturalistic communication strategies and focus children’s responses to these strategies. Results indicated that bug-in-ear eCoaching enhanced teachers’ use of communication strategies and the appropriate responses of children with communication difficulties. Moreover, novice teachers reported that bug-in-ear eCoaching was a socially valid intervention.

Single-case design standards: An update and proposed upgrades

2021 ◽  
Vol 89 ◽  
pp. 91-105
Author(s):  
Thomas R. Kratochwill ◽  
Robert H. Horner ◽  
Joel R. Levin ◽  
Wendy Machalicek ◽  
John Ferron ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Single Case ◽  
Single Case Design ◽  
Design Standards ◽  
Case Design

Increasing Play Complexity in a Young Child With Autism

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 81-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin E. Barton ◽  
Stephanie Gossett ◽  
M. Caroline Waters ◽  
Rebecca Murray ◽  
Rachel Francis
Keyword(s):  
Single Case ◽  
Children With Autism ◽  
Autism Spectrum ◽  
Probe Design ◽  
Contingent Reinforcement ◽  
Single Case Design ◽  
System Of Least Prompts ◽  
Play Behaviors ◽  
Multiple Probe ◽  
Case Design

Young children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) demonstrate fewer and less varied play behaviors than children with typical development. This article describes two studies designed to increase two aspects of play complexity—diverse play actions and sequential play actions—in a child with ASD. In Study 1, we use a multitreatment single-case design to compare the use of the system of least prompts with contingent reinforcement for diverse play or all play. In Study 2, we used a multiple probe design to examine the relation between the system of least prompts with contingent reinforcement and the child’s use of play sequences. Across both studies, the complexity of play increased when specific aspects—diversity or sequences—were prompted and reinforced; however, the maintenance of effects were variable.

scholarly journals Graphing in Single Case Design Studies

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer R. Ledford ◽  
Kathleen Nicole Zimmerman
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Single Case ◽  
Board Members ◽  
Graphical Display ◽  
Single Case Design ◽  
Design Studies ◽  
Data Points ◽  
Case Data ◽  
Case Design

Two studies regarding the graphic display of single case data are presented. First, measurement and graphical display of data from studies in highly-ranked journals in special education were assessed. Measurement of desirable behaviors rather than undesirable behaviors was common and most studies used sessions and percentages as x and y-values, respectively. Data presentation (graph ratios and number of data points and sessions per cm) were highly variable; average ratios did not align with previously-published recommendations. In the second study, 50 editorial board members of special education journals were surveyed to determine preferences for graphing ratios. Preferences did not align with recommended graphing practices and varied based on thenumber of sessions depicted on the graph.

Moving Forward Four Words at a Time: Effects of a Supplemental Preschool Vocabulary Intervention

2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 165-175 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindsey A. Peters-Sanders ◽  
Elizabeth S. Kelley ◽  
Christa Haring Biel ◽  
Keri Madsen ◽  
Xigrid Soto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Group Intervention ◽  
Single Case ◽  
Single Case Design ◽  
Vocabulary Intervention ◽  
Iterative Development ◽  
At Risk Children ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Child Friendly ◽  
Interactive Lessons ◽  
Case Design

Purpose This study evaluated the effects of an automated, small-group intervention designed to teach preschoolers challenging vocabulary words. Previous studies have provided evidence of efficacy. In this study, we evaluated the effects of the program after doubling the number of words taught from 2 to 4 words per book. Method Seventeen preschool children listened to 1 prerecorded book per week for 9 weeks. Each storybook had embedded, interactive lessons for 4 target vocabulary words. Each lesson provided repeated exposures to words and their definitions, child-friendly contexts, and multiple opportunities for children to respond verbally to instructional prompts. Participants were asked to define the weekly targeted vocabulary before and after intervention. A repeated acquisition single-case design was used to examine the effects of the books and embedded lessons on learning of target vocabulary words. Results Treatment effects were observed for all children across many of the books. Learning of at least 2 points (i.e., 1 word) was replicated for 74.5% of 149 books tested across the 17 participants. On average, children learned to define 47% of the target vocabulary words (17 out of 36). Conclusions Results support including 4 challenging words per book, as children learned substantially more words when 4 words were taught, in comparison to previous studies. Within an iterative development process, results of the current study take us 1 step closer to creating an optimal vocabulary intervention that supports the language development of at-risk children.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document