This article takes issue with Rubm and Knox on three main points: (1) misrepresentation of
single-case experimental designs; (2) logical inconsistencies; and (3) skewed portrayal of
weaknesses existing in single-case designs. Possible reasons why single-case experimental
designs are often misinterpreted in the social work literature are also discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baer, D.M., Wolf, M.M., & Risley, T.R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysisJournal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 91-97.
Gelso, C.J. (1993). On the making of scientist-practitioners: A theory of research training in professional psychologyProfessional Psychology: Research and Practice, 24, 468-476.
4.
Hersen, M., & Barlow, D.H. (1976). Single-case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change.New York: Pergamon.
5.
Kazdin, A.E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings.New York: Oxford University Press.
6.
Pfeiffer, S.I., Burd, S., & Wright, A. (1992). Clinicians and research: Recurring obstacles and some possible solutionsJournal of Clinical Psychology , 48, 140-145.
7.
Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. (1993). Research methods for social work (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
8.
Rubin, A., & Knox, K.S. (1996). Data analysis problems in single-case evaluation: Issues for research on social work practiceResearch on Social Work Practice, 6 , 40-65.
9.
Sidman, M. (1960). Tactics of scientific research: Evaluating experimental data in psychology.New York: Basic Books.
10.
Thyer, B.A. (1987a). Can behavior analysis rescue social work?Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20, 207-211.
11.
Thyer, B.A. (1987b). Contingency analysis: Toward a unified theory for social work practiceSocial Work, 32, 150-157.
12.
Wells, K., Feldman, R.A., & Kelman, S. (1988). Toward institutionalization of a research capacity in mental health service organizationsProfessional Psychology: Research and Practice,19, 63-67.
