CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,331Behavioral and Psychological StudiesMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsEducational Research and Methods

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Single-Case Intervention Research Design Standards

Kratochwill, Thomas R., Hitchcock, John H., Horner, Robert H., Levin, Joel R., Odom, Samuel L., Rindskopf, David M., Shadish, William R.·2013·Remedial and Special Education
DOI 10.1177/0741932512452794
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In an effort to responsibly incorporate evidence based on single-case designs (SCDs) into the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) evidence base, the WWC assembled a panel of individuals with expertise in quantitative methods and SCD methodology to draft SCD standards. In this article, the panel provides an overview of the SCD standards recommended by the panel (henceforth referred to as the Standards) and adopted in Version 1.0 of the WWC’s official pilot standards. The Standards are sequentially applied to research studies that incorporate SCDs. The design standards focus on the methodological soundness of SCDs, whereby reviewers assign the categories of Meets Standards, Meets Standards With Reservations, and Does Not Meet Standards to each study. Evidence criteria focus on the credibility of the reported evidence, whereby the outcome measures that meet the design standards (with or without reservations) are examined by reviewers trained in visual analysis and categorized as demonstrating Strong Evidence, Moderate Evidence, or No Evidence. An illustration of an actual research application of the Standards is provided. Issues that the panel did not address are presented as priorities for future consideration. Implications for research and the evidence-based practice movement in psychology and education are discussed. The WWC’s Version 1.0 SCD standards are currently being piloted in systematic reviews conducted by the WWC. This document reflects the initial standards recommended by the authors as well as the underlying rationale for those standards. It should be noted that the WWC may revise the Version 1.0 standards based on the results of the pilot; future versions of the WWC standards can be found at http://www.whatworks.ed.gov .

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0741932512452794

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 44 references

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Berk R. A., 1979, American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 83, 460
  2. 10.1201/9781420011814 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Gast D. L., 2010, Single subject research methodology in behavioral sciences
  4. Hartmann D. P., 2004, Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment, behavioral assessment, 3, 108
  5. Hedges L. V., 2011, Paper presented at the 5th annual meeting of the Society for research synthesis methodology
  6. Shadish W. R., 2011, Presented at the Society for Research Synthesis Methodology
  7. Smith J. D., Single-case experimental designs: A systematic review of published research and recommendations for researchers and reviewers
  8. Sullivan K. J., 2011, An assessment of single-case designs by the What Works Clearinghouse standards
  9. White O. R., 1980, Exceptional teaching

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 901–1,000 of 1,001

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Kratochwill, T. R., Hitchcock, J. H., Horner, R. H., Levin, J. R., Odom, S. L., Rindskopf, D. M., & Shadish, W. R.
Affiliations
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • Ohio University (US)
  • University of Oregon (US)
  • University of Arizona (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • City University of New York (US)
  • University of California, Merced (US)
ORCID
Venue
Remedial and Special Education
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2012-08-15
Volume
34
Issue
1
Pages
26-38
ISSN
  • 0741-9325 (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-4756
DOI
10.1177/0741932512452794
OpenAlex
W2155437772
Cited by
1,331
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 99 · 2025: 101 · 2024: 90 · 2023: 111 · 2022: 123 · 2021: 137 · 2020: 122 · 2019: 138 · 2018: 109 · 2017: 105 · 2016: 72 · 2015: 55 · 2014: 50 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 4
FWCI
79.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Remedial and Special Education (publishedVersion)
Funders
Goddard Space Flight Center
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
Keywords
single-case experimental design, What Works Clearinghouse, evidence-based practice, visual analysis, systematic reviews, evidence rating, special education intervention

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