|
| Interactive Workgroups: A Historical Perspective on Single-Case Methods in Basic and Applied Behavior Analysis |
| Friday, September 26, 2025 |
| 9:30 AM–10:20 AM |
| Embassy Suites Minneapolis; Topaz/Turqoise/Opal |
| Area: SCI; Domain: Theory |
| CE Instructor: Jennifer Ledford, Ph.D. |
| JENNIFER LEDFORD (Vanderbilt University), MICHAEL PERONE (West Virginia University) |
| Description: This presentation will review the origins of single-case research methods in basic laboratory research, how the designs have been used in basic and applied behavior analysis, and the strengths and weaknesses of past and current practices. In considering origins, we will discuss the essential characteristics of single-case research, the steady-state strategy, the importance of replication, the place of statistical inference, and the extent to which the experimenter’s judgment figures into the design and conduct of research. Historically, single-case research in behavior analysis has been associated with inductive and ideographic paradigms. As single-case methods have been extended to applied research in and outside of behavior analysis, they have become more aligned with deductive and nomothetic paradigms. There has also been an increase in the propagation of standards/quality indicators for single-case research and suggestions for changes that allow for the alignment of the outcomes of single-case research with those of other research paradigms (e.g., effect sizes, randomization). We will consider the ways in which the use of different paradigms has led to disparate approaches to single-case research. Understanding these differences is necessary for understanding the empirical contributions of each approach and for successfully prioritizing experimental standards that should be met for individual studies and groups of research. |
| Learning Objectives: 0. Describe the historical trajectory and conventions of single case design methodology. | 0. Explain the consequences of the evidence-based practice movement on the practice of single case design. | 0. Describe how using different paradigms could lead to different decisions during a study. |
| Activities: The audience will break into small groups for interactive discussions and applied activities related to Drs. Ledford & Perone's presentation. |
| Audience: Single-case researchers, reviewers, editors, and those who teach single-case designs |
| Content Area: Methodology |
| Instruction Level: Advanced |
| |
|
| Interactive Workgroups: The Tail Shouldn’t Wag the Dog: Clarifying the Roles That Quality Indicators Should Play in Research |
| Friday, September 26, 2025 |
| 11:35 AM–12:25 PM |
| Embassy Suites Minneapolis; Topaz/Turqoise/Opal |
| Area: SCI; Domain: Theory |
| CE Instructor: Joseph Michael Lambert, Ph.D. |
| JOSEPH MICHAEL LAMBERT (Vanderbilt University), TARA A. FAHMIE (University of Nebraska Medical Center) |
| Description: Quality Indicators of Single-Case Design (QI-SCD) formalize expert consensus about research conventions intended to ensure internal, external, and social validity in single-case designs. They were developed to prospectively guide the development of research studies, as well as to standardize retrospective appraisals of the quality of evidence in support of a given practice or procedure. Although QI-SCD have proven useful to both endeavors, the unqualified prioritization of QI-SCD can sometimes lead to invalid methodology. It can also have a suppressive effect on the complexity of the research questions we ask as a field and can lead to the oversimplification of extant evidence. In this presentation, we will provide a brief overview of QI-SCDs, will match QI-SCDs to specific empirical objectives (i.e., internal, external, & social validity), and will give attendees practice identifying and justifying the prioritization of some QI-SCDs over others, by logically tethering them to the objective(s) of their research. |
| Learning Objectives: 0. Attendees will articulate the intended purposes of QI-SCDs | 0. Attendees will identify the threats posed by misapplications of QI-SCDs | 0. Attendees will learn how to appropriately match research questions with relevant QI-SCDs when planning and evaluating SCD research |
| Activities: The audience will break into small groups for interactive discussions and applied activities related to Drs. Lambert & Fahmie's presentation. |
| Audience: Single-case researchers, reviewers, editors, and those who teach single-case designs |
| Content Area: Methodology |
| Instruction Level: Advanced |
| |
|
| Interactive Workgroups: Questionable and Improved Research Practices |
| Friday, September 26, 2025 |
| 2:55 PM–3:45 PM |
| Embassy Suites Minneapolis; Topaz/Turqoise/Opal |
| Area: SCI; Domain: Theory |
| CE Instructor: Timothy A. Slocum, Ph.D.phd |
| TIMOTHY A. SLOCUM (Utah State University) |
| Description: Scientific progress is driven, in part, by ongoing improvement in research methods. In the past decade, research methodologists have described substantial problems with replication of group comparison research in numerous disciplines and have identified a set of questionable research methods that appear to be important contributors to these problems. Much of the success of behavior analysis stems from the use of single-case experimental research (SCER). Heretofore, the concept of questionable research practices has not been systematically applied to SCER. This session will describe a systematic process to understand and identify potential questionable research practices and alternative improved research practices in SCER. This process included both conceptual development and bottom-up derivation of potential questionable and improved practices through sustained engagement with dozens of experienced SCER researchers as well as a broad survey of over a hundred researchers. Much of the session will be devoted to describing a set of recommended improvements in SCER procedures, data analysis, and reporting practices to further enhance its scientific validity and applied usefulness. These recommendations have immediate implications for conducting, reporting, reviewing, and applying SCER. |
| Learning Objectives: 0. Participants will describe the concepts of questionable and improved research practices as they apply to single-case experimental design. | 0. Participants will describe the logic of contingent application of the concepts of questionable and improved research practices. | 0. Participants will list 10 critical improved research practices, and describe the contexts in which they are applicable and those in which they are not applicable. |
| Activities: The audience will break into small groups for interactive discussions and applied activities related to Dr. Slocum's presentation. |
| Audience: Single-case researchers, reviewers, editors, and those who teach single-case designs |
| Content Area: Methodology |
| Instruction Level: Advanced |
| |
|
| Interactive Workgroups: Systematic Reviews of Single-Case Research: Aims, Challenges, and Good Practices |
| Friday, September 26, 2025 |
| 5:00 PM–5:50 PM |
| Embassy Suites Minneapolis; Topaz/Turqoise/Opal |
| Area: SCI; Domain: Theory |
| CE Instructor: James Eric Pustejovsky, Ph.D.phd |
| JAMES ERIC PUSTEJOVSKY (University of Wisconsin), DANIEL DREVON (Central Michigan University) |
| Description: Across domains from health care to education, systematic reviews are used to integrate findings from multiple past studies to inform evidence-based practice recommendations. In areas where single-case designs (SCDs) are widely used, researchers have recognized the importance of incorporating such studies into systematic reviews, and this goal has driven many developments in methodology—as well as some controversies. This session will examine how systematic review methods can account for the unique features of SCD studies. We will first describe core organizing principles of systematic reviews and delineate several distinct types, including scoping reviews, evidence maps, and quantitative meta-analyses. We will then consider three fundamental challenges for systematic reviews focused on intervention efficacy: 1) identifying all relevant evidence; 2) determining how to align findings across studies using heterogeneous procedures; and 3) assessing risks of bias in primary SCD studies. Finally, we will highlight practices that can strengthen the quality of systematic reviews of single-case studies. Presenters will then lead a structured discussion inviting participants to consider a) critiques of published systematic reviews of single-case research; b) limitations of the presenters’ methodological practice recommendations; and c) how primary study practices might need modification to support their inclusion in systematic reviews. |
| Learning Objectives: 0. 1. Recognize distinct types of systematic reviews and select an appropriate review type to match research aims. | 0. 2. Describe effective tactics for identifying studies for inclusion in a systematic review and explain the limitations of less effective tactics. | 0. 3. Select appropriate effect size metrics for quantifying intervention effects depending on the features of studies included in a review. |
| Activities: The audience will break into small groups for interactive discussions and applied activities related to Drs. Pustejovsky & Drevon's presentation. |
| Audience: Single-case researchers, reviewers, editors, and those who teach single-case designs |
| Content Area: Methodology |
| Instruction Level: Advanced |