Practitioners frequently use single-case data for decision-making related to behavioral programming and progress monitoring. Visual analysis is an important and primary tool for reporting results of graphed single-case data because it provides immediate, contextualized information. Criticisms exist concerning the objectivity and reliability of the visual analysis process. When practitioners are equipped with knowledge about single-case designs, including threats and safeguards to internal validity, they can make technically accurate conclusions and reliable data-based decisions with relative ease. This paper summarizes single-case experimental design and considerations for professionals to improve the accuracy and reliability of judgments made from single-case data. This paper can also help practitioners to appropriately incorporate single-case research design applications in their practice.
BaerD. M. (1977). Perhaps it would be better not to know everything. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 167-172. doi:10.1901/jaba.1977.10-167
2.
BarlowD. H.HayesS. C. (1979). Alternating treatments design: One strategy for comparing the effects of two treatments in a single subject. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 199-210. doi:10.1901/jaba.1979.12-199
3.
BarnettD. W.DalyE. J.IIIHampshireE. M.Rovak HinesN.MaplesK. A.OstromJ. K.Van BurenA. E. (1999). Meeting performance-based training demands: Accountability in an intervention-based practicum. School Psychology Quarterly, 14, 357-379. doi:10.1037/h0089014
4.
Behavior Analyst Certification Board®. (2016). Professional and Ethical Compliance Code for Behavior Analysts. Retrieved from https://www.bacb.com/ethics/ethics-code/
5.
BonnerM.BarnettD. W. (2004). Intervention-based school psychology services: Training for child-level accountability; preparing for program-level accountability. Journal of School Psychology, 42, 23-43. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2003.10.001
6.
ByunT. M.HitchcockE. R.FerronJ. (2017). Masked visual analysis: Minimizing Type I error in visually guided single-case design for communication disorders. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60, 1455-1466. doi:10.1044/2017_JSLHR-S-16-0344
7.
CarterM. (2013). Reconsidering overlap-based measures for quantitative synthesis of single-subject data: What they tell us and what they don’t. Behavior Modification, 37, 378-390. doi:10.1177/0145445513476609
8.
CohenJ. (1994). The earth is round (p < .05). American Psychologist, 49, 997-1003. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.49.12.997
9.
DeProsperoA.CohenS. (1979). Inconsistent visual analyses of intrasubject data. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 573-579. doi:10.1901/jaba.1979.12-573
10.
FerronJ.JonesP. K. (2006). Tests for the visual analysis of response-guided multiple-baseline data. The Journal of Experimental Education, 75, 66-81. doi:10.3200/JEXE.75.1.66-81
11.
FischG. S. (1998). Visual inspection of data revisited: Do the eyes still have it?The Behavior Analyst, 21, 111-123. doi:10.1007/BF03392786
12.
FurlongM. J.WampoldB. E. (1981). Visual analysis of single-subject studies by school psychologists. Psychology in the Schools, 18, 80-86. doi:10.1002/1520-6807(198101)18:1<80::AID-PITS2310180116>3.0.CO;2-X
13.
GriggN. C.SnellM. E.LoydB. (1989). Visual analysis of student evaluation data: A qualitative analysis of teacher decision making. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14, 23-32. doi:10.1177/154079698901400104
14.
HagopianL. P.FisherW. W.ThompsonR. H.Owen-DeSchryverJ.IwataB. A.WackerD. P. (1997). Toward the development of structured criteria for interpretation of functional analysis data. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 313-326. doi:10.1901/jaba.1997.30-313
15.
HigginsJ. P. T.AltmanD. G. (2008). Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In HigginsJ. P. T.GreenS. (Eds.). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (pp. 187-242). Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.
16.
HojemM. A.OttenbacherK. J. (1988). Empirical investigation of visual-inspection versus trend-line analysis of single-subject data. Physical Therapy, 68, 983-988. doi:10.1093/ptj/68.6.983
17.
HornerR. H.CarrE. G.HalleJ.McGeeG.OdomS.WoleryM. (2005). The use of single subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165-179. doi:10.1177/001440290507100203
18.
HornerR.SpauldingS. (2010). Single-case research designs. In SalkindN. J. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Research Design (pp. 1386-1394). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
19.
HornerR. H.SwaminathanH.SugaiG.SmolkowskiK. (2012). Considerations for the systematic analysis and use of single-case research. Education and Treatment of Children, 35, 269-290. doi:10.1353/etc.2012.0011
20.
KazdinA. E. (1999). The meanings and measurement of clinical significance. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 332-339. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.67.3.332
21.
KennedyC. H. (2005). Single-case designs for educational research. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
22.
KilgusS. P.Collier-MeekM. A.JohnsonA. H.JafferyR. (2014). Applied empiricism: Ensuring the validity of causal response to intervention decisions. Contemporary School Psychology, 18, 1-12. doi:10.1007/s40688-013-0009-z
23.
KoureaL.LoY. (2016). The educational validity and utility of single-case design research in building evidence-based practices in education. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 39, 349-364. doi:10.1080/1743727X.2016.1160278
24.
KratochwillT. R.LevinJ. R. (2014). Meta- and statistical analysis of single-case intervention research data: Quantitative gifts and a wish list. Journal of School Psychology, 52, 231-235. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2014.01.003
25.
KubinaR. M.KostewiczD. E.BrennanK. M.KingS. A. (2017). A critical review of line graphs in behavior analytic journals. Educational Psychology Review, 29, 583-598.
26.
LaneJ. D.GastD. L. (2014). Visual analysis in single case experimental design studies: Brief review and guidelines. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 24, 445-463. doi:10.1080/09602011.2013.815636
27.
LedfordJ. R. (2018). No randomization? No problem: Experimental control and random assignment in single case research. American Journal of Evaluation, 39, 71-90. doi:10.1177/1098214017723110
28.
LedfordJ. R.BartonE. E.SeveriniK. E.ZimmermanK. N. (2019). A primer on single-case research designs: Contemporary use and analysis. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 124, 35-56. doi:10.1352/1944-7558-124.1.35
29.
LedfordJ. R.GastD. L. (2018). Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
30.
LorahE. R.TincaniM.DodgeJ.GilroyS.HickeyA.HantulaD. (2013). Evaluating picture exchange and the iPadTM as a speech generating device to teach communication to young children with autism. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 25, 637-649. doi:10.1007/s10882-013-9337-1
31.
MagginD. M.BrieschA. M.ChafouleasS. M. (2013). An application of the What Works Clearinghouse standards for evaluating single-subject research: Synthesis of the self-management literature base. Remedial and Special Education, 34, 44-58. doi:10.1177/0741932511435176
32.
MagginD. M.BrieschA. M.ChafouleasS. M.FergusonT. D.ClarkC. (2014). A comparison of rubrics for identifying empirically supported practices with single-case research. Journal of Behavioral Education, 23, 287-311. doi:10.1007/s10864-013-9187-z
33.
MatyasT. A.GreenwoodK. M. (1990). Visual analysis of single-case time series: Effects of variability, serial dependence, and magnitude of intervention effects. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 341-351. doi:10.1901/jaba.1990.23-341
34.
MaytonM. R.ZhangJ.CarterS. L.SuppoJ. L. (2017). Evaluating the readiness of special education doctoral students to apply the standards of evidence-based practice to single-case research. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 17, 64-73. doi:10.1111/1471-3802.12103
35.
MitteerD. R.GreerB. D.FisherW. W.CohrsV. L. (2018). Teaching behavior technicians to create publication-quality, single-case design graphs in GraphPad Prism 7. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 51, 998-1010. doi:10.1002/jaba.483
36.
MoxleyR. A. (2007). Graphing in the classroom for improving instruction: From lesson plans to research. Education and Treatment of Children, 30, 111-126. doi:10.1353/etc.2007.0009
37.
NelsonP. M.Van NormanE. R.ChristT. (2017).Visual analysis among novices: Training and trend lines as graphic aids. Contemporary School Psychology, 21, 93-102. doi:10.1007/s40688-016-0107-9
38.
NinciJ.VannestK. J.WillsonV.ZhangN. (2015). Interrater agreement between visual analysts of single-case data: A meta-analysis. Behavior Modification, 39, 510-541. doi:10.1177/0145445515581327
39.
OttenbacherK. J. (1993). Interrater agreement of visual analysis in single-subject decisions: Quantitative review and analysis. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 98, 135-142.
40.
ParkerR. I.VannestK. J. (2012). Bottom-up analysis of single-case research designs. Journal of Behavioral Education, 21, 254-265. doi:i0.1007/s10864-012-9153-1
41.
ParsonsonB. S.BaerD. M. (1992). The visual analysis of data, and current research into the stimuli controlling it. In KratochwillT. R.LevinJ. R. (Eds.), Single-case research design and analysis: New directions for psychology and education (pp. 15-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
42.
RadleyK. C.DartE. H.WrightS. J. (2018). The effect of data points per x- to y-axis ratio on visual analysts evaluation of single-case graphs. School Psychology Quarterly, 33, 214-322. doi:10.1037/spq0000243
43.
ReichowB.BartonE. E.MagginD. M. (2018). Development and applications of the single-case design risk of bias tool for evaluating single-case design research study reports. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 79, 53-64. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2018.05.008
44.
RispoliM.CamargoS.MachalicekW.LangR.SigafoosJ. (2014). Functional communication training in the treatment of problem behavior maintained by access to rituals. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47, 580-593. doi:10.1002/jaba.130
45.
RoaneH. S.FisherW. W.KelleyM. E.MeversJ. L.BouxseinK. J. (2013). Using modified visual-inspection criteria to interpret functional analysis outcomes. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 46, 130-146. doi:10.1002/jaba.13
46.
SidmanM. (1960). Tactics of scientific research: Evaluating experimental data in psychology. New York, NY: Basic Books.
47.
SindelarP. T.RosenbergM. S.WilsonR. J. (1985). An adapted alternating treatments design for instructional research. Education and Treatment of Children, 8, 67-76.
48.
SkibaR.DenoS.MarstonD.CaseyA. (1989). Influence of trend estimation and subject familiarity on practitioners’ judgments of intervention effectiveness. The Journal of Special Education, 22, 433-446. doi:10.1177/002246698902200405
49.
SkinnerB. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
50.
SmithJ. D. (2012). Single-case experimental designs: A systematic review of published research and current standards. Psychological Methods, 17, 510-550. doi:10.1037/a0029312
51.
SpirrisonC. L.MauneyL. T. (1994). Acceptability bias: The effects of treatment acceptability on visual analysis of graphed data. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 16, 85-94. doi:10.1007/BF02229067
52.
ThompsonB. (2002). “Statistical,” “practical,” and “clinical”: How many kinds of significance do counselors need to consider?Journal of Counseling and Development, 80, 64-71.
53.
TincaniM.TraversT. (2018). Publishing single-case research design studies that do not demonstrate experimental control. Remedial and Special Education, 39, 118-128. doi:10.1177/0741932517697447
54.
UlmanJ. D.Sulzer-AzaroffB. (1975). Multielement baseline design in educational research. In RampE.SembG. (Eds.), Behavior analysis: Areas of research and application (pp. 377-391). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
55.
Virués-OrtegaJ. V.HaynesS. (2005). Functional analysis in behavior therapy: Behavioral foundations and clinical application. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 5, 567-587.
56.
VismaraL. A.LyonsG. L. (2007). Using perseverative interests to elicit joint attention behaviors in young children with autism: Theoretical and clinical implications for understanding motivation. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9, 214-228. doi:10.1177/10983007070090040401
57.
Ward-HornerJ.SturmeyP. (2010). Component analysis using single-subject experimental designs: A review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 43, 685-704. doi:10.1901/jaba.2010.43-685
58.
WendtO.MillerB. (2012). Quality appraisal of single-subject experimental designs: An overview and comparison of different appraisal tools. Education and Treatment of Children, 35, 235-268. doi:10.1353/etc.2012.0010
WolfM. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 203-214. doi:10.1901/jaba.1978.11-203
62.
WolfeK.SeamanM. A.DrasgowE. (2016). Interrater agreement on the visual analysis of individual tiers and functional relations in multiple baseline designs. Behavior Modification, 40, 852-873. doi:10.1177/0145445516644699
63.
WolfeK.SlocumT. A. (2015). A comparison of two approaches to training visual analysis of AB graphs. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 48, 472-477. doi:10.1002/jaba.212
64.
YellM. L. (2012). The law and special education (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
65.
YoungN. D.DalyE. J. (2016). An evaluation of prompting and reinforcement for training visual analysis skills. Journal of Behavioral Education, 25, 95-119. doi:10.1007/s10864-015-9234-z
