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
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
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
“It is selected for this trial as no control group is needed because each participant acts as their own control comparison (Kratochwill et al., 2012).”
From Unified Protocol for the transdiagnostic treatment of emotional disorders in people with post COVID-19 condition: study protocol for a multiple baseline n-of-1 trial (2023) · cites this paper as Kratochwill et al., 2012
In the citing paper
“Current guidelines recommend three different baseline conditions with at least 3–5 data points in each group (Kratochwill et al., 2010, 2012).”
From Unified Protocol for the transdiagnostic treatment of emotional disorders in people with post COVID-19 condition: study protocol for a multiple baseline n-of-1 trial (2023) · cites this paper as Kratochwill et al., 2012
Citations
Cites
(2002) · Cited by 13,211
Self-citationLangenberg, D. N. (2000) · Cited by 4,305
The Use of Single-Subject Research to Identify Evidence-Based Practice in Special Education
Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005) · Exceptional Children · doi:10.1177/001440290507100203 · Cited by 3,368
Self-citationSingle Case Experimental Designs: Strategies for Studying Behavior Change
Barlow, D. H., Nock, M. K., & Hersen, M. (1976) · Cited by 3,036
Single-Case Research Designs: Methods for Clinical and Applied Settings
Kazdin, A. E. (1982) · Cited by 2,852
Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings
Hayes, S. C. (1983) · Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/0005-7916(83)90018-6 · Cited by 2,677
Edgington, E. S., Edgington, E., & Onghena, P. (1964) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1002/0471667196.ess2169 · Cited by 2,052
Encyclopedia of research design
(2011) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.48-2447 · Cited by 1,925
Single-Case Designs for Educational Research
Kennedy, C. H. (2004) · Cited by 1,465
Standards of Evidence: Criteria for Efficacy, Effectiveness and Dissemination
Flay, B. R., Biglan, A., Boruch, R. F., Castro, F. G., Gottfredson, D., Kellam, S., Mościcki, E. K., Schinke, S., Valentine, J. C., & Ji, P. (2005) · Prevention Science · doi:10.1007/s11121-005-5553-y · Cited by 1,338
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- Berk R. A., 1979, American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 83, 460
- 10.1201/9781420011814 · DOI · Paper page
- Gast D. L., 2010, Single subject research methodology in behavioral sciences
- Hartmann D. P., 2004, Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment, behavioral assessment, 3, 108
- Hedges L. V., 2011, Paper presented at the 5th annual meeting of the Society for research synthesis methodology
- Shadish W. R., 2011, Presented at the Society for Research Synthesis Methodology
- Smith J. D., Single-case experimental designs: A systematic review of published research and recommendations for researchers and reviewers
- Sullivan K. J., 2011, An assessment of single-case designs by the What Works Clearinghouse standards
- White O. R., 1980, Exceptional teaching
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
Self-citationEvaluating Intervention Effects in Single‐Case Research Designs
Vannest, K. J., & Ninci, J. (2015) · Journal of Counseling & Development · doi:10.1002/jcad.12038 · Cited by 665
Project AIM: Autism intervention meta-analysis for studies of young children.
Sandbank, M., Bottema-Beutel, K., Crowley, S., Cassidy, M., Dunham, K., Feldman, J. I., Crank, J., Albarran, S. A., Raj, S., Mahbub, P., et al. (2020) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000215 · Cited by 606
Krasny-Pacini, A., & Evans, J. (2018) · Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.rehab.2017.12.002 · Cited by 373
Tate, R. L., Perdices, M., Rosenkoetter, U., Wakim, D., Godbee, K., Togher, L., & McDonald, S. (2013) · Neuropsychological Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/09602011.2013.824383 · Cited by 358
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)
- 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
- 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
- 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
