Questionable research practices (QRPs) are methodological decisions motivated and reinforced by publication that can distort conclusions drawn from the scientific literature. This study surveyed 143 single-case experimental design (SCED) researchers from various backgrounds about their perceptions of QRPs and corresponding improved research practices (IRPs). Participants rated the problematic nature, prevalence, validity-enhancing potential, and feasibility of 64 QRP-IRP pairs. We found broad agreement that most QRPs undermine SCED research integrity, and IRPs could further enhance SCED validity. Exploratory analyses revealed a strong correlation between perceived QRP severity and likelihood of IRP adoption. However, variability existed in observed QRP prevalence and feasibility of IRP implementation. We discuss ways to increase awareness about QRPs and IRPs, potential journal editorial policy shifts, and SCED researcher development to strengthen transparency and rigor. Implications for advancing SCED methodology also are discussed with emphasis on fostering a culture of improved SCED transparency and rigor.
AgnoliF.WichertsJ. M.VeldkampC. L. S.AlbieroP.CubelliR. (2017). Questionable research practices among Italian research psychologists. PLOS ONE, 12(3), e0172792. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172792
2.
AnvariF.LakensD. (2018). The replicability crisis and public trust in psychological science. Comprehensive Results in Social Psychology, 3(3), 266-286. https://doi.org/10.1080/23743603.2019.1684822
3.
BaerD. M.WolfM. M.RisleyT. R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of applied behavior analysis, 1(1), 91.
BakkerB. N.JaidkaK.DörrT.FaschingN.LelkesY. (2021). Questionable and open research practices: Attitudes and perceptions among quantitative communication researchers. Journal of Communication, 71(5), 715–738. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab031
6.
DellsénF. (2024). Disagreement and consensus in science. In BaghramianM.CarterJ. A.Cosker-RowlandR. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of philosophy of disagreement (pp. 286–296). Routledge.
7.
GopalakrishnaG.ter RietG.VinkG.StoopI.WichertsJ. M.BouterL. M. (2022). Prevalence of questionable research practices, research misconduct and their potential explanatory factors: A survey among academic researchers in The Netherlands. PLOS ONE, 17(2), e0263023. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263023
8.
HornerR. D.BaerD. M. (1978). Multiple-probe technique: A variation of the multiple baseline. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11(1), 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1978.11-189
9.
HuntingtonR. N.BadgettN. M.RosenbergN. E.GreenyK.BravoA.BristolR. M.ParkM. S. (2023). Social validity in behavioral research: A selective review. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 46(1), 201–215.
IoannidisJ. P. (2012). Why science is not necessarily self-correcting. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 645–654. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612464056
12.
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
LedfordJ. R.GastD. L. (2024). Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences (4th ed). Routledge.
17.
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
18.
McVayM. A.CooperK. B.Carrera SeoaneM.DonahueM. L.SchererL. D. (2021). Transparent reporting of hypotheses and analyses in behavioral medicine research: An audit of publications in 2018 and 2008. Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine, 9(1), 285–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/21642850.2021.1907186
19.
MorrisE. K.SmithN. G.AltusD. E. (2005). BF Skinner’s contributions to applied behavior analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 28(2), 99–131.
20.
NeohM. J. Y.CarolloA.LeeA.EspositoG. (2023). Fifty years of research on questionable research practices in science: Quantitative analysis of co-citation patterns. Royal Society Open Science, 10(10), 230677. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.230677
21.
NosekB. A.HardwickeT. E.MoshontzH.AllardA.CorkerK. S.DreberA.VazireS. (2022). Replicability, robustness, and reproducibility in psychological science. Annual Review of Psychology, 73, 719–748. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-114157
22.
O’DonohueW. O.MasudaA. (2022). Questionable research practices in clinical psychology. In O’DonohueW.MasudaA.LilienfeldS. (Eds.), Avoiding questionable research practices in applied psychology (pp. 3–18). Springer.
23.
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251), aac4716. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716
24.
PashlerH.WagenmakersE. J. (2012). Editors’ introduction to the special section on replicability in psychological science: A crisis of confidence?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 528–530.
25.
Plotly Technologies Inc. (2015). Collaborative data science. Plotly Technologies Inc. https://plot.ly
26.
R Core Team. (2024). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
SchwartzI. S.BaerD. M. (1991). Social validity assessments: Is current practice state of the art?Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24(2), 189–204. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1991.24-189
29.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (Eds.). (2002). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Houghton Mifflin.
30.
SidmanM. (1960). Tactics of scientific research. Basic Books.
31.
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/10.1177/095679761141
SlocumT. A.PinkelmanS. E.JoslynP. R.NicholsB. (2022). Threats to internal validity in multiple-baseline design variations. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 45(3), 619–638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-022-00326-1
34.
SlocumT. A.TincaniM.TraversJ. C.DowdyA. (2023, March). Questionable single-case research practices: Preliminary results and discussion [Paper presentation]. Badar-Kauffman Conference on Contemporary Issues in Special Education, Kent, OH.
35.
SoderbergC. K.ErringtonT. M.SchiavoneS. R.BottesiniJ.ThornF. S.VazireS.EsterlingK. M.NosekB. A. (2021). Initial evidence of research quality of registered reports compared with the standard publishing model. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(8), 990–997.
36.
TawnyJ. W.GastD. L. (1984). Single subject research in special education. Merrill.
37.
TincaniM.TraversJ. C. (2019). Replication research, publication bias, and applied behavior analysis. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 42(1), 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-019-00191-5
38.
TincaniM.TraversJ. C. (2022). Questionable research practices in single-case experimental designs: Examples and possible solutions. In O’DonohueW.MasudaA.LilienfeldS. O. (Eds.), Questionable research practices: Designing, conducting, and reporting sound research in clinical psychology. Springer Publications.
39.
TincaniM.TraversJ. C.DowdyA.SlocumT. A.DeitrichR. (2025). Questionable and improved research practices in single-case experimental design: Initial investigation and findings. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 48(2), 447–473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-025-00441-9
40.
van den AkkerO. R.van AssenM. A.BakkerM.ElsherifM.WongT. K.WichertsJ. M. (2024). Preregistration in practice: A comparison of preregistered and non-preregistered studies in psychology. Behavior Research Methods, 56(6), 5424–5433.
41.
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. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Handbooks
WickhamH.FrançoisR.HenryL.MüllerK.VaughanD. (2023). dplyr: A grammar of data manipulation (R Package Version 1.1.4). https://dplyr.tidyverse.org
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
