The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Single-case intervention research: Methodological and statistical advances.
Abstract
Thanks to remarkable methodological and statistical advances in recent years, Single-Case design (SCD) research has become a viable and often essential option for researchers in applied psychology, education, and related fields. This text is a compendium of information and tools for researchers considering SCD research, a methodology in which one or several participants (or other units) comprise a systematically-controlled experimental intervention study. SCD is a highly flexible method of conducting applied intervention research where it is not feasible or practical to collect data from traditional groups of participants. Initial chapters lay out the key components of SCDs, from articulating dependent variables to documenting methods for achieving experimental control and selecting an appropriate design model. Subsequent chapters show when and how to implement SCDs in a variety of contexts and how to analyze and interpret results. Authors emphasize key design and analysis tactics, such as randomization, to help enhance the internal validity and scientific credibility of individual studies. This rich resource also includes in-depth descriptions of large-scale SCD research projects being undertaken at key institutions; practical suggestions from journal editors on how to get SCD research published; and detailed instructions for free, user-friendly, web-based randomization software.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“As per Kratochwill and Levin, the onset of the ACT intervention was randomized across a 5- to 7-day period [60].”
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Wong, C., Odom, S. L., Hume, K. A., Cox, A. W., Fettig, A., Kucharczyk, S., Brock, M. E., Plavnick, J. B., Fleury, V. P., & Schultz, T. R. (2015) · Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · doi:10.1007/s10803-014-2351-z · Cited by 1,584
“such techniques is occurring (Kratochwill and Levin 2014), and meta-analysis of comprehensive reviews, such as this one, may be a direction for the future.”
BackgroundSingle-Case Intervention Research Design Standards
Kratochwill, T. R., Hitchcock, J. H., Horner, R. H., Levin, J. R., Odom, S. L., Rindskopf, D. M., & Shadish, W. R. (2013) · Remedial and Special Education · doi:10.1177/0741932512452794 · Cited by 1,331
Tate, R. L., Perdices, M., Rosenkoetter, U., McDonald, S., Togher, L., Shadish, W., Horner, R., Kratochwill, T., Barlow, D. H., Kazdin, A., et al. (2016) · Archives of Scientific Psychology · doi:10.1037/arc0000027 · Cited by 219
“…Barker et al., 2011; Barlow, Nock, & Hersen, 2009; Gast & Ledford, 2014; Horner et al., 2005; Kazdin, 2011; Kennedy, 2005; Kratochwill et al., 2013; Kratochwill & Levin, 2014; Morgan & Morgan, 2009; Riley-Tilman & Burns, 2009; Vannest, Davis, & Parker, 2013), as well as recent special issues of…”
Using response ratios for meta-analyzing single-case designs with behavioral outcomes
Pustejovsky, J. E. (2018) · Journal of School Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2018.02.003 · Cited by 214
The Single-Case Reporting Guideline In BEhavioural Interventions (SCRIBE) 2016 Statement
Tate, R. L., Perdices, M., Rosenkoetter, U., Shadish, W., Vohra, S., Barlow, D. H., Horner, R., Kazdin, A., Kratochwill, T., McDonald, S., et al. (2016) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.2522/ptj.2016.96.7.e1 · Cited by 189
“…Barker et al., 2011; Barlow, Nock, & Hersen, 2009; Gast & Ledford, 2014; Horner et al., 2005; Kazdin, 2011; Kennedy, 2005; Kratochwill et al., 2013; Kratochwill & Levin, 2014; Morgan & Morgan, 2009; Riley-Tillman & Burns, 2009; Vannest, Davis, & Parker, 2013), as well as recent special issues of…”
Metadata
- Venue
- American Psychological Association eBooks
- Publisher
- American Psychological Association
- Published
- 2014
- OpenAlex
- W2302472531
- Cited by
- 223
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 5
- FWCI
- 33.83
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Psychological Association eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research
- Keywords
- single-case experimental design, experimental control, randomization, internal validity, design model, dependent variables
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
