Single-Case Experimental Design for Evaluating Basic Reading Interventions for Students With Learning Disabilities: An Illustrative Case

Abstract

Many students with learning disabilities (LD) do not master basic reading skills, which affects later reading fluency and reading comprehension development. Single-case experimental design (SCED) research yields unique opportunities to better understand which aspects of a basic reading intervention are effective with a particular student, including the individual’s rate of growth, stability, or maintenance of acquired skills, and whether or not modifications need to be made to the intervention under study. In this article, we use a case study illustration to highlight unique considerations for using SCED research to investigate basic reading interventions for students with LD. Finally, we provide a discussion of future directions and a potential shift in SCED methodology that is responsive to the comprehensive and multiple skill nature of reading instruction.

Keywords

single-subject methods research design or utilization reading

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baer

D. M.

Wolf

M. M.

Risley

T. R.

(1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1(1), 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1968.1-91

Barger-Anderson

Domaracki

J. W.

Kearney-Vakulick

Kubina

R. M.

Jr. (2004). Multiple-baseline designs: The use of a single-case experimental design in literacy research. Reading Improvement, 41(4), 217–226. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ709534

Barton

E. E.

Lloyd

B. P.

Spriggs

A. D.

Gast

D. L.

(2018). Visual analysis of graphic data. In Ledford

J. R.

Gast

D. L.

(Eds.), Single-case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences (3rd ed., pp. 179–214). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315150666

Berkeley

Ray

(2020). Reading fundamentals for students with learning difficulties: Instruction for diverse K-12 classrooms. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351137850

Berkeley

Riccomini

P. J.

(2017). Academic progress monitoring. In Kauffman

J. M.

Hallahan

D. P.

Pullen

P. C.

(Eds.), Handbook of special education (2nd ed., pp. 218–232). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315517698

Brasseur-Hock

I. F.

Hock

M. F.

Kieffer

M. J.

Biancarosa

Deshler

D. D.

(2011). Adolescent struggling readers in urban schools: Results of a latent class analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(4), 438–452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.01.008

Burns

M. K.

(2002). Comprehensive system of assessment to intervention using curriculum-based assessments. Intervention in School and Clinic, 38(1), 8–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512020380010201

Cantor

Osher

Berg

Steyer

Rose

(2019). Malleability, plasticity, and individuality: How children learn and develop in context. Applied Developmental Science, 23(4), 307–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2017.1398649

Cirino

P. T.

Romain

M. A.

Barth

A. E.

Tolar

T. D.

Fletcher

J. M.

Vaughn

(2013). Reading skill components and impairments in middle school struggling readers. Reading and Writing, 26(7), 1059–1086. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-012-9406-3

10.

Cook

B. G.

Buysse

Klingner

Landrum

T. J.

McWilliam

R. A.

Tankersley

Test

D. W.

(2015). CEC’s standards for classifying the evidence base of practices in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 36(4), 220–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514557271

11.

Cooper

Hedges

L. V.

Valentine

J. C.

(Eds.). (2019). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (3rd ed.). Russell Sage Foundation. https://doi.org/10.7758/9781610448864

12.

Denton

C. A.

Wexler

Vaughn

Bryan

(2008). Intervention provided to linguistically diverse middle school students with severe reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(2), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2008.00266.x

13.

Eckert

T. L.

Ardoin

S. P.

Daisey

D. M.

Scarola

M. D.

(2000). Empirically evaluating the effectiveness of reading interventions: The use of brief experimental analysis and single-case designs. Psychology in Schools, 37(5), 463–473. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807(200009)37:5<463::AID-PITS6>3.0.CO;2-X

14.

Gast

D. L.

Ledford

J. R.

(2018). Research approaches in applied settings. In Ledford

J. R.

Gast

D. L.

(Eds.), Single-case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences (3rd ed., pp. 1–26). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315150666

15.

Gast

D. L.

Lloyd

B. P.

Ledford

J. R.

(2018). Multiple-baseline and multiple-probe designs. In Ledford

J. R.

Gast

D. L.

(Eds.), Single-case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences (3rd ed., pp. 239–282). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315150666

16.

Hall

Hughes

Filbert

(2000). Computer-assisted instruction in reading for students with learning disabilities: A research synthesis. Education and Treatment of Children, 23(2), 173–193. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42940524

17.

Hock

M. F.

Brasseur

I. F.

Deshler

D. D.

Catts

H. W.

Marquis

J. G.

Mark

C. A.

Stribling

J. W.

(2009). What is the reading component skill profile of adolescent struggling readers in urban schools? Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.2307/25474660

18.

Horner

R. H.

Carr

E. G.

Halle

McGee

Odom

Wolery

(2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100203

19.

Horner

R. H.

Swaminathan

Sugai

Smolkowski

(2012). Considerations for the systematic analysis and use of single-case research. Education and Treatment of Children, 35(2), 269–290. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2012.0011

20.

Knight

V. F.

Spooner

Browder

D. M.

Smith

B. R.

Wood

C. L.

(2013). Using systematic instruction and graphic organizers to teach science concepts to students with autism spectrum disorders and intellectual disability. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 28(2), 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357612475301

21.

Kratochwill

T. R.

Hitchcock

Horner

R. H.

Levin

J. R.

Odom

S. L.

Rindskopf

D. M.

Shadish

W. R.

(2010). Single-case designs technical documentation. What Works Clearinghouse. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/wwc_scd.pdf

22.

Kratochwill

T. R.

Levin

J. R.

(Eds.). (2015). Single-case research design and analysis (psychology revivals): New directions for psychology and education. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315725994

23.

Kuhn

M. R.

Schwanenflugel

P. J.

Meisinger

E. B.

Levy

B. A.

Rasinski

T. V.

(Eds.). (2010). Aligning theory and assessment of reading fluency: Automaticity, prosody, and definitions of fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(2), 230–251. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.2.4

24.

Lane

Wolery

Reichow

Rogers

(2007). Describing baseline conditions: Suggestions for study reports. Journal of Behavioral Education, 16(3), 224–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-006-9036-4

25.

Ledford

J. R.

Gast

D. L.

(Eds.). (2018). Single-case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315725994

26.

Leko

M. M.

(2015). To adapt or not to adapt: Navigating an implementation conundrum. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 48(2), 80–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059915605641

27.

Leko

M. M.

Roberts

C. A.

Pek

(2015). A theory of secondary teachers’ adaptations when implementing a reading intervention program. The Journal of Special Education, 49(3), 168–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466914546751

28.

Lexia Learning Systems. (2001). Strategies for older students [Computer software].

29.

H.-H.

(2006). An alternative method for quantitative synthesis of single-subject researchers: Percentage of data points exceeding the median. Behavior Modification, 30(5), 598–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445504272974

30.

Maccini

Gagnon

J. C.

Hughes

C. A.

(2002). Technology-based practices for secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25(4), 247–261. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511356

31.

Moeyaert

Zimmerman

K. N.

Ledford

R. J.

(2018). Synthesis and meta-analysis of single-case research. In Ledford

J. R.

Gast

D. L.

(Eds.), Single-case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences (3rd ed., pp. 393–416). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315150666

32.

Parker

R. I.

Vannest

K. J.

Davis

J. L.

(2011). Effect size in single-case research: A review of nine nonoverlap techniques. Behavior Modification, 35(4), 303–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445511399147

33.

Parker

R. I.

Vannest

K. J.

Davis

J. L.

(2014). A simple method to control positive baseline trend within data nonoverlap. The Journal of Special Education, 48(2), 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466912456430

34.

Parker

R. I.

Vannest

K. J.

Davis

J. L.

Sauber

S. B.

(2011). Combining nonoverlap and trend for single-case research: Tau-U. Behavior Therapy, 42(2), 284–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2010.08.006

35.

Regan

Berkeley

Hughes

Kirby

(2014). Effects of computer-assisted instruction for struggling elementary readers with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 48(2), 106–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466913497261

36.

Scruggs

T. E.

Mastropieri

M. A.

(1998). Summarizing single-subject research: Issues and applications. Behavior Modification, 22(3), 221–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/01454455980223001

37.

Shadish

W. R.

Hedges

L. V.

Horner

R. H.

Odom

S. L.

(2015). The role of between-case effect size in conducting, interpreting, and summarizing single-case research (NCER 2015-002). National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED562991.pdf

38.

Tate

R. L.

Perdices

Rosenkoetter

Shadish

Vohra

Barlow

D. H.

Horner

Kazdin

Kratochwill

McDonald

Sampson

Shamseer

Togher

Albin

Backman

Douglas

Evans

J. J.

Gast

Manolov

Wilson

(2016). The single-case reporting guideline in behavioural interventions (SCRIBE) 2016 statement. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 4(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/arc0000026

39.

Vannest

K. J.

Parker

R. I.

Gonen

Adiguzel

(2016). Single-case research: Web-based calculators for SCR analysis (Version 2.0) [Web-based application]. Texas A&M University. www.singlecaseresearch.org

40.

Wanzek

Otaiba

S. A.

Petscher

(2014). Oral reading fluency development for children with emotional disturbance or learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 80(2), 187–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291408000204

41.

What Works Clearinghouse. (2017). Reviewer guidance for use with the procedures handbook (version 4.0) and standards handbook (version 4.0). Updated October 30, 2017. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/ReferenceResources/wwc_reviewer_guidance_103017.pdf

42.

What Works Clearinghouse. (2020). Reviewer guidance for use with the procedures handbook (version 4.1) and standards handbook (version 4.1). Updated January 1, 2020. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/ReferenceResources/wwc_reviewer_guidance_103017.pdf

43.

White

(2016, October 31). What is effective and for whom: The importance of looking beyond averages and chasing the tail. Campbell Collaboration. https://campbellcollaboration.org/blog/what-is-effective-and-for-whom-the-importance-of-looking-beyond-averages-and-chasing-the-tail.html

44.

Wolery

Ezell

H. K.

(1993). Subject descriptions and single-subject research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26(10), 642–647. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949302601001