Rating the methodological quality of single-subject designs and n-of-1 trials: Introducing the Single-Case Experimental Design (SCED) Scale
Abstract
Rating scales that assess methodological quality of clinical trials provide a means to critically appraise the literature. Scales are currently available to rate randomised and non-randomised controlled trials, but there are none that assess single-subject designs. The Single-Case Experimental Design (SCED) Scale was developed for this purpose and evaluated for reliability. Six clinical researchers who were trained and experienced in rating methodological quality of clinical trials developed the scale and participated in reliability studies. The SCED Scale is an 11-item rating scale for single-subject designs, of which 10 items are used to assess methodological quality and use of statistical analysis. The scale was developed and refined over a 3-year period. Content validity was addressed by identifying items to reduce the main sources of bias in single-case methodology as stipulated by authorities in the field, which were empirically tested against 85 published reports. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using a random sample of 20/312 single-subject reports archived in the Psychological Database of Brain Impairment Treatment Efficacy (PsycBITE). Inter-rater reliability for the total score was excellent, both for individual raters (overall ICC = 0.84; 95% confidence interval 0.73-0.92) and for consensus ratings between pairs of raters (overall ICC = 0.88; 95% confidence interval 0.78-0.95). Item reliability was fair to excellent for consensus ratings between pairs of rater…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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 line with recommended standards, the case study measured more than 3 points at baseline across multiple outcomes (distress, psychological flexibility and engagement with values) to ensure greater reliability in baseline measurement.
“In line with recommended standards (i.e. Tate et al ., 2008), the present case study measured more than 3 points at baseline across multiple outcomes (i.e. distress, psychological flexibility and engagement with values) to ensure greater reliability in baseline measurement.”
From Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) for post-stroke adjustment difficulties via telerehabilitation in a working-age man (2023) · cites this paper as Tate et al ., 2008
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 35 · Cited by 362
- Authors
- L Tate, R., Mcdonald, S., Perdices, M., Togher, L., Schultz, R., & Savage, S.
- Affiliations
- UNSW Sydney (AU)
- Royal North Shore Hospital (AU)
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- Venue
- Neuropsychological Rehabilitation
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2008-08
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 385-401
- ISSN
- 0960-2011 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-0694
- OpenAlex
- W2099717439
- Cited by
- 362
- References
- 35
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 36 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 31 · 2013: 38 · 2012: 18
- FWCI
- 14.37
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Neuropsychological Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Keywords
- single-case experimental design, N-of-1 trials, methodological quality, rating scales, inter-rater reliability, content validity, critical appraisal
- MeSH terms
- Clinical Trials as Topic, Humans, Quality Control, Research Design, Weights and Measures, Reproducibility of Results, Effect Modifier, Epidemiologic
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
