In this manuscript, we respond to the minimum standards for describing research subjects as proposed by the Council for Learning Disabilities (CLD) Research Committee. Three issues are raised about the standards: (a) whether justification exists for the recommended standards, (b) whether a relationship exists between the description of subjects and the probability of replication, and (c) whether all types of research require the same subject description standards. These issues are discussed, and three recommendations to investigators who use single-subject research designs are made: (1) Describe variables that control subjects' performance in baseline conditions and the contexts of that performance, (2) identify subject selection criteria, and (3) report status variables as recommended by the CLD Research Committee.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Birnbrauer, J. S. (1981). External validity and experimental investigation of individual behaviour. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 1, 117–132.
2.
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (1987). Applied behavior analysis. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
3.
Cybriwsky, C. A., Wolery, M., & Gast, D. L. (1990). Use of a constant time delay procedure in teaching preschoolers in a group format. Journal of Early Intervention, 14, 99–116.
4.
Gast, D. L., Ault, M. J., Wolery, M., Doyle, P. M., & Belanger, S. (1988). Comparison of constant time delay and the system of least prompts in teaching sight word reading to students with moderate retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 23, 117–128.
5.
Gast, D. L., & Tawney, J. W. (1984). Single subject research in special education. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
6.
Gast, D. L., Wolery, M., Morris, L. L., Doyle, P. M., & Meyer, S. (1990). Teaching sight word reading in group instructional arrangements using constant time delay. Exceptionality, 1, 81–92.
7.
Hammill, D. D., Bryant, B. R., Brown, L., Dunn, C., & Marten, A. (1989). How replicable is current LD research? A follow-up to the CLD Research Committee's recommendations. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12(3), 174–179.
8.
Kazdin, A. E. (1981). External validity and single-case experimentation: Issues and limitations (a response to J. S. Birnbrauer). Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 1, 133–143.
9.
Phillips, D. A. (1987). Quality in child care: What does research tell us?Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
10.
Rosenberg, M. S., Bott, D., Majsterek, D., Chiang, B., Gartland, D., Wesson, C., Graham, S., Smith-Myles, B., Miller, M., Swanson, H. L., Bender, W., Rivera, D., & Wilson, R. (1992). Minimum standards for the description of participants in learning disabilities research. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15, 65–70.
11.
Rutherford, R. B., & Nelson, C. M. (1982). Analysis of the response contingent time-out literature with behaviorally disordered students in classroom settings. In R. B. Rutherford (Ed.), Monographs in behavior disorders: Severe behavior disorders of children and youth (Vol. 5), pp. 79–105). Reston, VA: Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders of the Council for Exceptional Children.
12.
Sidman, M. (1960). Tactics of scientific research: Evaluating experimental data in psychology. New York: Basic Books.
13.
Smith, D. D., Deshler, D., Hallahan, D., Lovitt, T., Robinson, S., Voress, J., & Ysseldyke, J. (1984). Minimum standards for description of subjects in learning disabilities research reports. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 221–225.
14.
Solnick, J. V., Rincover, A., & Peterson, C. R. (1977). Some determinants of the reinforcing and punishing effects of timeout. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 415–424.
15.
Wickstrom, S., Goldstein, H., & Johnson, L. (1985). On the subject of subjects: Suggestions for describing subjects in language intervention studies. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 50, 282–286.
16.
Wolery, M., Ault, M. J., & Doyle, P. M. (1992). Teaching students with moderate and severe disabilities: Use of response prompting strategies. White Plains, NY: Longman.
17.
Wolery, M., Bailey, D. B., & Sugai, G. M. (1988). Effective teaching: Principles and procedures of applied behavior analysis with exceptional students. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
18.
Wolery, M., Cybriwsky, C. A., Gast, D. L., & Boyle-Gast, K. (1991). Use of constant time delay and attentional responses with adolescents. Exceptional Children, 57, 462–474.
19.
Wolery, M., Holcombe, A., Cybriwsky, C. A., Doyle, P. M., Schuster, J. W., Ault, M. J., & Gast, D. L. (1992). Constant time delay with discrete responses: A review of effectiveness and demographic, procedural, and methodological parameters. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 13, 239–266.
