scholarly journals Use of Reporting Guidelines in Scientific Writing: PRISMA, CONSORT, STROBE, STARD and Other Resources

2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robyn L. Tate ◽  
Jacinta Douglas
Keyword(s):  
Observational Studies ◽  
Qualitative Methodology ◽  
Rating Scales ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Single Case ◽  
Internal Validity ◽  
Reporting Guidelines ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Research Designs ◽  
Quality Rating

AbstractIn this special article we describe a number of reporting guidelines endorsed by the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) group for a range of research designs that commonly appear in scientific journals: systematic reviews, clinical trials with and without randomisation, observational studies, n-of-1 (or single-case experimental design) trials, and diagnostic studies. We also consider reporting guidelines for studies using qualitative methodology. In addition to reporting guidelines, we present method quality rating scales, which aim to measure risk of bias that threatens the internal validity of a study. Advantages of reporting guidelines and method quality rating scales for authors include the provision of a structure by which to improve the clarity and transparency of report writing; for reviewers and readers advantages include a method by which to critically appraise an article.Brain Impairmentendorses these reporting guidelines and applies them within the review process for submissions to the journal.

Comparing the Effects of Two Reading Interventions Using a Randomized Alternating Treatment Design

2019 ◽  
Vol 86 (4) ◽  
pp. 355-373
Author(s):  
Youjia Hua ◽  
Michelle Hinzman ◽  
Chengan Yuan ◽  
Kinga Balint Langel
Keyword(s):  
Visual Analysis ◽  
Reading Interventions ◽  
Single Case ◽  
Vocabulary Instruction ◽  
Internal Validity ◽  
Randomization Tests ◽  
Research Designs ◽  
Single Case Research ◽  
Alternating Treatment Design ◽  
Treatment Design

An emerging body of research suggests that incorporating randomization schemes in single-case research designs strengthens study internal validity and data evaluation. The purpose of this study was to test the utility and feasibility of a randomized alternating-treatment design in an investigation that compared the combined effects of vocabulary instruction and the paraphrasing strategies on expository comprehension of six students with reading difficulties. We analyzed the data using three types of randomization tests as well as visual analysis. The visual analysis and randomization tests confirmed the additional benefit of vocabulary instruction on expository comprehension for one student. However, the effects were not replicated across the other five students. We found that proper randomization schemes can improve both internal validity and data analysis strategies of the alternating-treatment design.

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

2019 ◽  
Vol 124 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer R. Ledford ◽  
Erin E. Barton ◽  
Katherine E. Severini ◽  
Kathleen N. Zimmerman
Keyword(s):  
Single Case ◽  
Internal Validity ◽  
Positive Outcomes ◽  
Case Research ◽  
Functional Relations ◽  
Research Designs ◽  
Single Case Research ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Data Analytic ◽  
Selection Of

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 data collection apps and single-case designs to research transformative learning in adults

2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 206-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin M Roessger ◽  
Arie Greenleaf ◽  
Chad Hoggan
Keyword(s):  
Data Collection ◽  
Transformative Learning ◽  
Single Case ◽  
Internal Validity ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
Case Research ◽  
Research Designs ◽  
Single Case Research ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Single Case Designs

To overcome situational hurdles when researching transformative learning in adults, we outline a research approach using single-case research designs and smartphone data collection apps. This approach allows researchers to better understand learners’ current lived experiences and determine the effects of transformative learning interventions on demonstrable outcomes. We first discuss data collection apps and their features. We then describe how they can be integrated into single-case research designs to make causal inferences about a learning intervention’s effects when limited by researcher access and learner retrospective reporting. Design controls for internal validity threats and visual and statistical data analysis are then discussed. Throughout, we highlight applications to transformative learning and conclude by discussing the approach’s potential limitations.

No Randomization? No Problem

2017 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer R. Ledford
Keyword(s):  
Single Case ◽  
Internal Validity ◽  
Experimental Conditions ◽  
Treatment Groups ◽  
Case Research ◽  
Logic Control ◽  
Large Numbers ◽  
Research Designs ◽  
Single Case Research ◽  
Single Case Designs

Randomization of large number of participants to different treatment groups is often not a feasible or preferable way to answer questions of immediate interest to professional practice. Single case designs (SCDs) are a class of research designs that are experimental in nature but require only a few participants, all of whom receive the treatment(s) of interest. SCDs are particularly relevant when a dependent variable of interest can be measured repeatedly over time across two conditions (e.g., baseline and intervention). Rather than using randomization of large numbers of participants, SCD researchers use careful and prescribed ordering of experimental conditions, which allow researchers to improve internal validity by ruling out alternative explanations for behavior change. This article describes SCD logic, control of threats to internal validity, the use of randomization and counterbalancing, and data analysis in the context of single case research.

Judges and defendants

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gianfranco Pacchioni
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Social Cost ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Contemporary Science ◽  
The Social ◽  
Pros And Cons ◽  
Scientific Publishers

This chapter explores how validation of new results works in science. It also looks at the peer-review process, both pros and cons, as well as scientific communication, scientific journals, and scientific publishers. We give an assessment of the total number of existing journals with peer review. Other topics discussed include the phenomenon of open access, predatory journals and their impact on contemporary science, and the market of scientific publications. Finally, we touch on degenerative phenomena, such as the market of co-authors, bogus papers, and irrelevant and wrong studies, as well as the problem and the social cost of irreproducible results.

scholarly journals Beyond Manipulation: Administrative Sorting in Regression Discontinuity Designs

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 164-181
Author(s):  
Cristian Crespo
Keyword(s):  
Regression Discontinuity ◽  
Internal Validity ◽  
Treatment Assignment ◽  
Research Designs ◽  
Regression Discontinuity Designs ◽  
Administrative Procedures

Abstract This paper elaborates on administrative sorting, a threat to internal validity that has been overlooked in the regression discontinuity (RD) literature. Variation in treatment assignment near the threshold may still not be as good as random even when individuals are unable to precisely manipulate the running variable. This can be the case when administrative procedures, beyond individuals’ control and knowledge, affect their position near the threshold non-randomly. If administrative sorting is not recognized it can be mistaken as manipulation, preventing fixing the running variable and leading to discarding viable RD research designs.

Testing incontinence pads using single-case research designs

1994 ◽  
Vol 3 (7) ◽  
pp. 316-324 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda M Proudfoot ◽  
Elizabeth S Farmer ◽  
Jean B McIntosh
Keyword(s):  
Single Case ◽  
Case Research ◽  
Research Designs ◽  
Incontinence Pads ◽  
Single Case Research

Stretched peer-review on unexpected results (GMOs)

2005 ◽  
Vol 52 (6) ◽  
pp. 99-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
A.I. Myhr
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Media Coverage ◽  
Genetically Modified Organisms ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Primary Source ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Unexpected Findings ◽  
Early Warnings

Science is the basis for governance of risk from genetically modified organisms (GMO), and it is also a primary source of legitimacy for policy decision. However, recently the publication of unexpected results has caused controversies and challenged the way in which science should be performed, be published in scientific journals, and how preliminary results should be communicated. These studies have subsequently, after being accepted for publication within the peer-review process of leading scientific journals, been thoroughly re-examined by many actors active within the GMO debate and thereby drawn extensive media coverage. The publicized charges that the research involved does not constitute significant evidence or represent bad science have in fact deflected attention away from the important questions related to ecological and health risks raised by the research. In this paper, I will argue that unexpected findings may represent “early warnings.” Although early warnings may not represent reality, such reports are necessary to inform other scientists and regulators, and should be followed up by further research to reveal the validity of the warnings. Furthermore, science that embraces robust, participatory and transparent approaches will be imperative in the future to reduce the present controversy surrounding GMO use and release.

scholarly journals Beyond the mask of deference: exploring the relationship between ruptures and transference in a single-case study

2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesca Locati ◽  
Pietro De Carli ◽  
Emanuele Tarasconi ◽  
Margherita Lang ◽  
Laura Parolin
Keyword(s):  
Sequential Analysis ◽  
Rating Scales ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Defense Mechanism ◽  
Single Case ◽  
Assessment Procedure ◽  
Single Case Study ◽  
Alliance Ruptures ◽  
The Relationship

The relationship between transference and therapeutic alliance has been long discussed. It is only recently, however, that empirical evidence has provided support for a tight correspondence between several transference dimensions and rupture and resolution processes. In the present single-case study, we used alliance ruptures as a key dimension to understand patient’s transference dynamics. This was achieved in a particular form of patient’s behavior, i.e., patient’s deference and acquiescent behavior, which describes a significant submission to assertions, skills, judgments and point of views of another person. Therapeutic process was measured by means of the Rupture Resolution Rating Scale, the Core Conflictual Relationship Theme and the Defense Mechanism Rating Scales, whereas therapeutic outcome was measured by means of the Shedler-Westen Assessment Procedure-200. Results of sequential analysis yielded a significant correspondence between rupture markers, characterized by avoidance and shifting of session’s topic, and patient’s narrations. Furthermore, a systematic correspondence between alliance ruptures and patient’s avoidant functioning, which emerged both in transference relationship and in the quality of the defense structure, was found. Together, these findings indicate that patient’s deference inhibits the expression of relational themes, with ruptures in alliance that seem to be supported by a strong defensive structure. In particular, patient’s avoidance played a double role in the treatment. On the one hand, avoidance was the main characteristic of her transference structure, based on extreme intellectualization and emotional closure. On the other hand, it contributed to create an impasse in the treatment, based on a withdrawal ruptures model and on obsessive level defences.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document