Selective reporting is the exclusion of some study results from research reports, usually those that do not support claims of intervention effectiveness. Selective reporting inflates the perceived effects of an intervention and may mislead researchers and professionals to erroneous conclusions and courses of action. This registered report systematically investigated selective reporting in single-case experimental research studies in special education by comparing data and results reported in dissertation research published between 2010 and 2015 to respective published journal articles. Our search yielded 1,810 dissertations, of which 124 were published as journal articles and coded for discrepancies. Of the 41 dissertation-article pairs with discrepancies, we found 10 (8%) pairs that appeared to selectively report results for one or more participants and/or dependent variables. Published articles tended to report a greater number of experimental effects with larger effect sizes than dissertations. Researchers using single-case experimental designs should resist selective reporting and adopt open and transparent reporting practices.
BartonE. E.LloydB. P.SpriggsA. D.GastD. L. (2018). Visual analysis of graphic data. In LedfordJ. R.GastD. L. (Eds.), Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences (3rd ed., pp. 284–332). Routledge.
2.
BoothA.ClarkeM.DooleyG.GhersiD.MoherD.PetticrewM.StewartL. (2012). The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: An international prospective register of systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 1(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-2
3.
BradleyH. A.RucklidgeJ. J.MulderR. T. (2017). A systematic review of trial registration and selective outcome reporting in psychotherapy randomized controlled trials. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 135(1), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/acps.12647
4.
ChanA. W.HróbjartssonA.HaahrM. T.GøtzscheP. C.AltmanD. G. (2004). Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: Comparison of protocols to published articles. Journal of the American Medical Association, 291, 2457–2465. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.291.20.2457
DowdyA.PeltierC.TincaniM.SchneiderW. J.HantulaD. A.TraversJ. C. (2021). Meta-analyses and effect sizes in applied behavior analysis: A review and discussion. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 54(4), 1317–1340. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.862
7.
DowdyA.TincaniM.SchneiderW. J. (2020). Evaluation of publication bias in response interruption and redirection: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 53(4), 2151–2171. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.724
8.
EkholmE.ChowJ. (2018). Addressing publication bias in educational psychology. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 4(4), 425. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000181
9.
GreenwoodC. R.AbbottM. (2001). The research to practice gap in special education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24(4), 276–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/088840640102400403
10.
HackenbergT. D. (2018). Token reinforcement: Translational research and application. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 51(2), 393–435. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.439
11.
HantulaD. A. (2019). Replication and reliability in behavior science and behavior analysis: A call for a conversation. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 42, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-019-00194-2
12.
HavránekT. (2015). Measuring intertemporal substitution: The importance of method choices and selective reporting. Journal of the European Economic Association, 13(6), 1180–1204. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeea.12133
JohnL. K.LoewensteinG.PrelecD. (2012). Measuring the prevalence of questionable research practices with incentives for truth telling. Psychological Science, 23(5), 524–532. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611430953
15.
KratochwillT. R.HitchcockJ.HornerR. H.LevinJ. R.OdomS. L.RindskopfD. M.ShadishW. R. (2010). Single-case designs technical documentation. What Works Clearinghouse. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Document/229
16.
LedfordJ. R.GastD. L. (Eds.). (2018). Single subject research methodology in behavioral sciences: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences. Routledge.
17.
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(1), 44–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932511435176
18.
MakelM. C.HodgesJ.CookB. G.PluckerJ. A. (2021). Both questionable and open research practices are prevalent in education research. Educational Researcher, 50(8), 493–504. https://doi-org/10.3102/0013189X211001356
19.
ManolovR.MoeyaertM.FingerhutJ. E. (2022). A priori justification for effect measures in single-case experimental designs. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 45, 153–186. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-021-00282-2
20.
Marks-AnglinA.ChenY. (2020). A historical review of publication bias. Research Synthesis Methods, 11(6), 725–742. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1452
21.
MazzolaJ. J.DeulingJ. K. (2013). Forgetting what we learned as graduate students: HARKing and selective outcome reporting in I–O journal articles. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6, 279–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/iops.12049
22.
MoeyaertM.ManolovR.RodabaughE. (2020). Meta-analysis of single-case research via multilevel models: Fundamental concepts and methodological considerations. Behavior Modification, 44(2), 265–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445518806867
23.
MoherD.LiberatiA.TetzlaffJ.AltmanD. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. British Medical Journal, 339. https://doi/10.1136/bmj.b2535
24.
MorinK. L.SamA.TomaszewskiB.WatersV.OdomS. L. (2021). Knowledge of evidence-based practices and frequency of selection among school-based professionals of students with autism. The Journal of Special Education, 55, 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466920958688
25.
National Autism Center (2015). National Standards Project: Addressing the need for evidence-based practice guidelines for autism spectrum disorder. Author.
26.
NosekB. A.HardwickeT. E.MoshontzH.AllardA.CorkerK. S.DreberA.FidlerF.HilgardJ.Kline StruhlM.NuijtenM. B.RohrerJ. M.RomeroF.ScheelA. M.SchererL. D.SchönbrodtF. D.VazireS. (2022). Replicability, robustness, and reproducibility in psychological science. Annual Review of Psychology, 73(1), 719–748. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-114157
27.
O’DonohueW.SnipesC.SotoC. (2016). A case study of overselling psychotherapy: An ACT intervention for diabetes management. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 46(1), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10879-015-9308-1
28.
PageM. J.HigginsJ. P. T.SternJ. A. C. (2024). Assessing risk of bias due to missing evidence in a meta-analysis. In HigginsJ. P. T.ThomasJ.CumpstonM.LiT.PageM. J.WelchV. A. (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (version 6.5). https://www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
29.
PigottT. D.ValentineJ. C.PolaninJ. R.WilliamsR. T.CanadaD. D. (2013). Outcome-reporting bias in education research. Educational Researcher, 42(8), 424–432. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X13507104
30.
PustejovskyJ. E. (2020). clubSandwich: Cluster-robust (sandwich) variance estimators with small-sample corrections (Version 0.4.2) [R package]. https://github.com/jepusto/clubSandwich
31.
PustejovskyJ. E.HedgesL. V.ShadishW. R. (2014). Design-comparable effect sizes in multiple baseline designs: A general modeling framework. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 39(5), 368–393. https://doi-org/10.3102/1076998614547577
32.
PustejovskyJ. E.TiptonE. (2018). Small-sample methods for cluster-robust variance estimation and hypothesis testing in fixed effects models. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 36(4), 672–683. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350015.2016.1247004
33.
QiC. H.BartonE. E.CollierM.LinY. L. (2018). A systematic review of single-case research studies on using video modeling interventions to improve social communication skills for individuals with autism spectrum disorder. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 33(4), 249–257. https://doi/10.1177/10883576177412
34.
RispoliM.NinciJ.NeelyL.ZainiS. (2014). A systematic review of trial-based functional analysis of challenging behavior. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 26, 271–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-013-9363-z
35.
SandbankM.Bottema-BeutelK.SyuY. C.CaldwellN.FeldmanJ. I.WoynaroskiT. (2024). Evidence-b (i) ased practice: Selective and inadequate reporting in early childhood autism intervention research. Autism, 28(8), 1889–1901. https://doi.org/10.1177/136236132412316
36.
ShadishW. R.ZelinskyN. A.VeveaJ. L.KratochwillT. R. (2016). A survey of publication practices of single-case design researchers when treatments have small or large effects. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 49, 656–673. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.308
37.
ShamE.SmithT. (2014). Publication bias in studies of an applied behavior-analytic intervention: An initial analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47, 663–678. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.177
38.
SidmanM. (1960). Tactics of scientific research. Evaluating experimental data in psychology. Basic Books.
39.
SimmonsJ. P.NelsonL. D.SimonsohnU. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22(11), 1359–1366. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617698
40.
SimonsohnU.SimmonsJ.NelsonL. (2023, June17). Data Falsificada (Part 1): “Clusterfake.” Data Colada. http://datacolada.org/109
41.
SmithJ. D. (2012). Single-case experimental designs: A systematic review of published research and current standards. Psychological Methods, 17, 510–550. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029312
42.
TalbottE.MagginD. M.ChuaM.AshleyL.ChenX.ChinP. A.CurryM. K. (2024). Outcome-reporting bias in special Education intervention research using experimental and quasi-experimental group designs: A conceptual replication. Remedial and Special Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325241240067
43.
TincaniM.De MersM. (2016). Meta-analysis of single-case research design studies on instructional pacing. Behavior Modification, 40(6), 799–824. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445516643488
44.
TincaniM.TraversJ. (2019). Replication research, publication bias, and applied behavior analysis. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 42(1), 59–75.
45.
TincaniM.TraversJ. C. (2022). Questionable research practices in single-case experimental designs: Examples and possible solutions.In O’DonohueW.MasudaA.LilienfeldS. (Eds.), Avoiding questionable research practices in applied psychology (pp. 269–285). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04968-2_12
46.
TincaniM.TraversJ. C.DowdyA.SlocumT.DietrichR. (2025). Questionable and improved research practices in single-case experimental design: Initial investigation and findings. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 48, 447–473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-025-00441-9
47.
ViechtbauerW. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03
48.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2022). What Works Clearinghouse procedures and standards handbook, version 5.0. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE). https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Handbooks
49.
WoleryM.HolcombeA.CybriwskyC.DoyleP. M.SchusterJ. W.AultM. J.GastD. L. (1992). Constant time delay with discrete responses: A review of effectiveness and demographic, procedural, and methodological parameters. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 13(3), 239–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/0891-4222(92)90028-5
50.
WongC.OdomS. L.HumeK. A.CoxA. W.FettigA.KucharczykS.BrockM. E.PlavnickJ. B.FleuryV. P.SchultzT. R. (2015). Evidence-based practices for children, youth, and young adults with autism spectrum disorder: A comprehensive review. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45(7), 1951–1966. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-014-2351-z
