See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/363184941

Single-case experimental design (Chapter 33)-PREPRINT

Preprint · January 2023

DOI: 10.1037/0000319-033

CITATIONS READS
0 152

3 authors, including:

John Ferron Megan Kirby

University of South Florida Language Dynamics Group
188 PUBLICATIONS 5,438 CITATIONS 16 PUBLICATIONS 21 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Cultural Competency Training of Pre-Service Students to Prepare for Working with Diverse Populations View project

Implementation Science & Educational Intervention Design for Displaced Children View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Megan Kirby on 01 September 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Part VI

QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH
DESIGNS INVOLVING
SINGLE PARTICIPANTS
OR UNITS

1ST PAGES
1ST PAGES
 Chapter 33
SINGLE-CASE EXPERIMENTAL
DESIGN
John M. Ferron, Megan Kirby, and Lodi Lipien
Single-case experimental designs (SCEDs) are
experimental designs used to study the effects of
interventions on individual cases. This focus on
individual effects is a defining feature of SCEDs
and can be motivated by conceptual, as well as
practical, considerations. Conceptually, the belief
in the uniqueness of individuals and the potential
for variability in the response to an intervention
motivates a desire to study intervention effects one
participant at a time (Morgan & Morgan, 2009).
As studies accrue, the individual effect estimates
can be used to build a distribution from which
we can see consistencies or inconsistencies in the
effect across cases, best- or worst-case scenarios,
and typical or average effects. Practical reasons
that may motivate the use of SCEDs include
(a) studying the effect of an intervention for those
from a sparse population or with a rare diagnosis,
making it difficult to recruit more than few
participants for a study (Odom et al., 2005);
(b) developing an intervention where it may
be efficient to pilot and refine the intervention
through a series of single-case studies (Gallo
et al., 2013); and (c) adding to the research
base on the effects of interventions in practice
through the engagement of clinicians (Morgan
& Morgan, 2009).
Single-case experimental design has been
referred to by a variety of names, including
https://doi.org/10.1037/0000319-033
APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology, Second Edition: Vol. 2. Research Designs: Quantitative, Qualitative, Neuropsychological, and
Biological, H. Cooper (Editor-in-Chief)
Copyright © 2023 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved.
1ST PAGES
single-subject design, single-case design, and
N-of-1 trials. These designs assume a variety of
forms, including, but not limited to, reversal,
alternating treatments, changing criterion, repeated
acquisition, multiple-baseline, and multiple-probe
designs. One may ask why we need so many
design options to study individual effects or why
traditional pre–post intervention measurement
at the individual level is not sufficient. Although
looking at the pre-to-post change for an individual
may be common in some areas of clinical practice,
it can be difficult to argue that the change was
due to the intervention. It is possible that the
behavior, or outcome of interest, fluctuates over
time for the individual, and the change that is
observed is simply part of this routine fluctua-
tion. It is also possible that there was indeed a
systematic change, but that the change resulted
from something other than the intervention
(e.g., a change in the home, school, or work
environment that happened to coincide with
the start of the intervention). Sensitive to the
detection of change at the case level across time,
SCEDs have been developed to help us separate
intervention effects from other confounds.
However, because of the variation within indi­
viduals and outcomes of interest, there is no
single best way to do this. Rather, design varia-
tions have emerged as research has evolved.
Ferron, Kirby, and Lipien
In this chapter, we first consider the experi-
mental tactics developed to strengthen the internal
validity of studies focusing on individual effects.
These tactics help us attribute observed changes
to the intervention and include the use of baseline
logic, response-guided experimentation, repli­
cation, and randomization. Next, we show how
various experimental tactics can be combined to
produce a variety of SCEDs in which appropriate
selection of a design is dependent upon the study
purpose, participant characteristics, and the
outcome of interest. We next consider additional
procedures used within SCEDs to document
reliability of the outcome measurement, treatment
fidelity, generalization, and social validity,
and close with a summary of analysis options
appropriate for SCEDs.
EXPERIMENTAL TACTICS
Experimental tactics are procedures used to
strengthen the internal validity of SCEDs. These
procedures include baseline logic, response-guided
experimentation, within-case replication, between-
case replication, and randomization.
Baseline Logic
Many SCEDs involve phases in which multiple
observations, typically five or more, are collected
under the same treatment condition. For example,
the study may begin with a baseline phase in
which five to 10 observations are collected in
a business-as-usual condition prior to the intro­
duction of the intervention. The baseline, if stable,
establishes a problem level of behavior (i.e., the
need for intervention) and allows researchers
to assess treatment effects by comparing what
is observed in the intervention phase to what
would be expected if the baseline were projected
(Engel & Schutt, 2013; Sidman, 1960). To make
projections about what would have been observed
in the absence of intervention, the researcher must
make an assumption about some kind of temporal
stability. The strictest stability assumption is that
the outcome is temporally stable, implying that
there is no variation in the outcome from one
session to the next (e.g., all baseline observation
1ST PAGES
values are zero). In such cases, the projections are
relatively straightforward because the researcher
can assume that in the absence of intervention,
future observations of the outcome would have
values identical to the constant baseline value.
More commonly, stability assumptions are
less strict, and the projections are less exact.
Researchers may expect some variability in the
outcome from one observation to the next due
to various factors that are outside of the control
of the researcher, but they may also assume that
there are no systematic trends (i.e., the expected
level of the behavior does not change over time).
In such situations, the baseline projections
assume that in the absence of intervention, the
mean and variation of future observations would
be similar to baseline observations. Consider for
example a researcher who is studying the effect
of an intervention on the number of minutes
a child with attention deficit disorder spends
reading. Initial baseline and intervention phases
are shown in Figure 33.1. The baseline obser­
vations show no trend, with observations ranging
from two to nine minutes of reading during
30-minute daily reading sessions. Given this
baseline, it seems reasonable to project that
without intervention, the child would continue to
read less than 10 minutes per session. Because
the intervention observations are not in line
with the baseline projection, they support the
contention that something has changed the reading
behavior of the child.
If there is not only variability in the baseline
observations, but also noticeable trends, baseline
projections become more challenging. Here the
researcher may assume that the trend is temporally
stable (i.e., the same trend would continue in the
absence of intervention). If this assumption is
reasonable, the researcher would use an extension
of the baseline trend line to make a projection
of what would happen in the absence of inter­
vention. Manolov and colleagues (2019) provided
an excellent discussion of the challenges in pro-
jecting trends and provide some relatively flexible
options for making projections. If it is unreason-
able to assume a continued trend, any projection
becomes so suspect that baseline logic fails.
 Single-Case Experimental Design

30 A B

25

20

Minutes
15

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Session

FIGURE 33.1.   Illustration of an AB design.

Response-Guided Experimentation unobserved factor has led to a more permanent

When researchers adopt the tactic of baseline logic, shift in the level of the behavior and that the
they commit to establishing stable baselines. fifth observation is reflective of this new level
However, the number of baseline observations of behavior. Finally, Projection C assumes that
that will be needed may not be known prior to some unobserved factor is leading to a shift in
starting the study. Consider the baseline obser- the behavior, but that this transition to a new
vations graphed in Figure 33.2 representing the level is still in process, and thus future baseline
on-task behavior of a child with an emotional observations would be higher than those collected
behavioral disorder. The instability in the base- to this point. When there are such a wide range
line, and particularly the high value for the fifth of possible projections, it is not feasible to use
observation, leads to uncertainty about what baseline logic.
would be observed if we continued in baseline, To ensure baselines are stable at the time of
as shown by the three alternative projections transition to an intervention phase, researchers
in Figure 33.2. Projection A assumes that the may choose response-guided experimentation,
uniqueness of the last observation is attributable where the length of the baseline is not established
to some unobserved event specific to the day of a priori, but rather is dependent on an ongoing
the fifth observation, and thus future baseline visual analysis of the data as they are collected.
observations would return to the level of the first If this ongoing visual analysis reveals variation
four observations. Projection B assumes that some that can be accounted for (e.g., it is related to the
target child’s seatmate during the observation
period), the researcher can alter the baseline
condition to hold this factor constant and obtain
100
a more stable baseline. If researchers are unable
80 C to identify and hold constant the source of the
variability, they can extend the baseline phase
60
B until the instability has passed and stability has
40 been established. For example, the researcher
20 A may extend the five-observation baseline in
Figure 33.2 to see if the baseline level would
0 be reestablished at the level of the first four
FIGURE 33.2.   Unstable baseline with observations (Projection A) or at a higher level
three possible projections (A, B, and C). (Projection B or C).

1ST PAGES
Ferron, Kirby, and Lipien
Often the tactic of response-guided experi-
mentation is coupled with the tactic of baseline
logic, but in some situations baseline logic can be
used without response-guided experimentation.
Specifically, in contexts where the participant and
outcome of focus produce little to no baseline
variability, there is no need to respond to the data.
Consider a study of a phonological awareness
intervention, where the participant inclusion
criteria included a lack of first-sound identifi­
cation skills, and thus the researcher anticipates
that the participant will score zero on each of the
baseline measures of first-sound identification.
The researcher may fix the baseline length to
three or four observations based on practical
considerations, or they may randomly select
whether it will be three or four observations.
Either way, the baseline length could be established
a priori, as opposed to in a response-guided
fashion, and baseline logic could be used because
the baseline would be stable.
Replication
Baseline logic and response-guided experimen­
tation are useful approaches in the design of
SCEDs, but they are not sufficient for making
causal inferences. When the observations in a
treatment phase differ from the baseline projection,
multiple explanations for the change are possible.
It may have been due to the intervention, but it
could also have been due to something other than
30
Number of Desirable Responses
25
20
15
10
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39
FIGURE 33.3.   Illustration of within-case replication.
the intervention, which just happened to coincide
with the intervention. Consider the results shown
in Figure 33.1. We see a shift in the number of
minutes the child reads, but it is difficult to know
if the intervention caused the change in behavior.
The child could have increased their reading
because of some nonintervention change in the
teacher behavior, some change among their peers,
or for a variety of other reasons. Replication is a
tactic used to make it more difficult to attribute
changes to factors other than the intervention.
One way to replicate is to do so within the
case. If the effect of the intervention is believed
to be limited to when the intervention is active
(e.g., while a support dog is present, or when
the child is taking their prescribed medication),
the intervention could be removed with the
expectation that the behavior would return to
baseline levels, and then the intervention could
be reintroduced. Consider again a researcher
studying the effect of an intervention on the
amount of time a child spends reading. Suppose
that the study had started as shown in Figure 33.1,
and then the researcher added a second baseline
phase followed by a second treatment phase, as
shown in Figure 33.3. Because of the replication
of the effect within the case, it would be difficult
to attribute the change in behavior to some other
factor. Put simply, it does not seem plausible
that the other factor would happen to occur,
be removed, and then occur again, in a way that
A B A B
Session
1ST PAGES
 Single-Case Experimental Design

coincided with the changes between baseline
and intervention phases.
In some cases, a behavior is not reversible,
such as when the intervention targets the learning
of a particular skill, and thus removal of the
intervention is not expected to lead to a return
to baseline levels. In such studies, within-case
replication is not possible. However, replication
could be accomplished by attempting to duplicate
the effect across different individuals, behaviors,
or settings. When replicating across cases (i.e.,
participants, behaviors, or settings) the start of
the intervention is typically introduced at different
times, as illustrated in Figure 33.4. When changes
in behavior are staggered over time and coincide
10
8
6 in our previous examples is not present, and
4 thus the tactic of baseline logic is unavailable.
2
0 to the difference in treatments and not some other
12
Number of Desirable Responses
with the introduction of intervention, there is
stronger evidence of a causal relation. However,
if changes in behavior occur simultaneously for
all cases, the changes are more likely due to some
nonintervention effect than the intervention
itself. Thus, with replication at different times,
researchers are able to disentangle intervention
effects from history effects (i.e., external events
that impact the outcome, such as a change in
school personnel or policies).
Randomization
Another experimental tactic that may be used
with SCEDs is randomization. Consider a com-
parative study of the effect of two treatments on
a reversible behavior. The researchers may design
the study so there is rapid alternation between
the treatments. In this case, the phase structure
(e.g., five or more successive observations in the
same intervention condition) that was shown
However, the researchers still need to argue that
the difference between the observations is due
factor. In this context, SCED researchers will often
conceptualize their design as having successive
pairs of observations, and then randomly assign

10
one observation from each pair to each condition
8 (i.e., one of the first two observations to Treat-
6 ment A and the other to Treatment B, one of the
4 second two observations to Treatment A and
2 the other to Treatment B, and so forth). If the
0 researcher finds that the behavior is consistently
better under Treatment A than Treatment B,
it is difficult to attribute this difference to
12
some other factor. This type of randomization
10 facilitates analyses (e.g., randomization tests;
8 Edgington & Onghena, 2007) that control the
6 probability of incorrectly inferring that one
4 treatment was more effective than the other
2 (i.e., control over Type I errors), as well as
0 facilitating unbiased estimates of the treatment
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 effect. A review of SCEDs suggests that randomi­
Session zation is commonly used in designs that rapidly
FIGURE 33.4.   Illustration of across-case alternate between conditions (Tanious &
replication. Onghena, 2020).

1ST PAGES
Ferron, Kirby, and Lipien
Although somewhat less common, randomiza-
tion is also used in designs with a phase structure
(Tanious & Onghena, 2020). Here researchers use
one of several methods to randomly determine
when the transitions between phases will occur.
For example, consider Figure 33.3 where one
could randomly determine when to transition
from A1 to B1, B1 to A2, and A2 to B2 (e.g., Onghena,
1992), or consider Figure 33.4 where one could
determine randomly when to transition from
baseline to treatment for each case (e.g., Koehler
& Levin, 1998). Just as with randomization
procedures for designs that rapidly alternate
between treatments, randomization in designs
with phases facilitates analyses that control Type I
errors. However, randomly selecting transition
times does not remove the relationship between
time and treatment assignment (e.g., baseline
observations still precede treatment observa-
tions) and thus treatment effect estimates may
be biased by time-related unobserved factors
(Ferron et al., 2014). Consequently, the randomi­
zation used in SCEDs with phases is more
limited in value than the randomization used
in designs with rapid alternation between
conditions. In addition, selecting start points
a priori conflicts with response-guided experi-
mentation (e.g., Kazdin, 1980), and, thus,
researchers using phase-based designs may
choose either a priori randomization or response-
guided experimentation. In contexts where
baselines are assumed to have little to no
variability, there is minimal need for response-
guided experimentation, and random selection
of transition points can be easily accommo-
dated. In addition, for researchers who have
practical constraints preventing them from
extending phases or who prefer a design that
is not responsive to the data, the option of
randomizing tran­sition points is appealing.
Finally, for researchers who would like to respond
to their data to ensure stable baselines as well
as randomize, there are approaches to do so,
where the random assignments are made during
rather than before the experiment (Ferron &
Jones, 2006; Moeyaert et al., 2021).
1ST PAGES
TYPES OF SCEDs
By using different combinations of the experi-
mental tactics of baseline logic, response-guided
experimentation, within-case replication,
between-case replication, and randomization,
a variety of SCEDs emerge. We discuss some of
the options here, indicating which experimental
tactics may be used, along with the contexts for
which these designs are best aligned.
Withdrawal and Reversal Designs
The withdrawal (or reversal) design can be
used to study individual intervention effects on
reversible outcomes (i.e., outcomes that would
return to the baseline level if the intervention were
removed). They consist of a baseline phase (A),
followed by an intervention phase (B), followed
by a second baseline phase where the intervention
is withdrawn and the behavior is expected to
revert to baseline levels (Baer et al., 1968; Sidman,
1960). The second baseline phase is typically
followed by a second intervention phase, creating
an ABAB design, as shown in Figure 33.3. Visual
inspection of Figure 33.3 shows the number
of desirable behaviors during the intervention
phases is higher than could be reasonably pro-
jected from the baseline phases, and this effect
is replicated within the case, providing evidence
of a treatment effect. With an ABAB design,
there are three opportunities to observe effects
(i.e., at each of the three transitions between
phases), which is generally considered to be
the minimum acceptable number of replications.
For those who prefer more replications, the ABAB
design can be extended by adding phases within
the case, such as in an ABABAB design, or by
replicating the ABAB design across cases. As can
be seen in this illustration, the internal validity
of withdrawal designs relies heavily on baseline
logic and within-case replication. In addition,
withdrawal designs may include response-
guided experimentation (Kazdin, 1980),
randomly selected times to transition between
phases (Onghena, 1992), or both (Ferron &
Levin, 2014). 1 LINE S
 Single-Case Experimental Design

Multiple Baseline Designs natural rate of the behavior at infrequent but

The multiple-baseline design is commonly
used to investigate the effect of an intervention
on a target behavior, particularly when it is not
feasible or appropriate to use a reversal design,
such as when the target behavior is not reversible.
This design includes a minimum of three cases
(i.e., behaviors, settings, or individuals) with
baselines of varying lengths so that the inter-
vention is introduced at different times for each
case. More specifically, the baseline phase for
the first case should be stable prior to intro­
ducing the intervention, and the baseline phase
for the second case should continue until the
intervention phase for the first case is stable.
This staggered approach allows the researcher to
determine if changes in behavior coincide with
the intervention for each participant. As shown
in Figure 33.4, the data are presented in stacked
graphs, one for each case. An advantage of the
multiple-baseline design is that its staggered
intervention across cases allows for more expe­
rimental control than replicated AB designs,
scheduled time points during baseline rather than
continuous measurement (Murphy & Bryan, 1980).
The use of probes reduces the need for resources
by minimizing unnecessary data collection, but
researchers must ensure that no changes in the
behavior have occurred before introducing the
intervention. A multiple-probe design is illustrated
in Figure 33.5. The reduction in the number of
baseline observations is observed for the second
and third participant. In particular, the third
participant has five baseline observations but
would have had 10 in a traditional multiple-
baseline design.
10
8
6
4
2

making it easier to conclude that the intervention 0

was responsible for the change in behavior
(Horner & Odom, 2014). The internal validity
10
of multiple-baseline designs relies on baseline
Number of Desirable Responses

logic and temporally staggered replication in 8

which ongoing visual analysis is used to confirm 6
stability within the phases. In addition, researchers
4
may utilize response-guided experimentation
(Baer et al., 1968), random selection of inter- 2
vention starts (Koehler & Levin, 1998), or both 0
response-guided experimentation and randomi­
zation (Ferron & Jones, 2006).
12

Multiple-Probe Designs 10
The multiple-probe design is a variation of the 8
multiple-baseline design, which requires fewer 6
observations. It is often preferred when (a) long 4
baseline phases present an ethical problem, 2
(b) the target behavior is unlikely to change in 0
the absence of the intervention, or (c) the target 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
behavior is readily influenced by repeated testing Session
(Horner & Baer, 1978; Morgan & Morgan, 2009). FIGURE 33.5.   Illustration of a multiple-probe
SHORT In this design, probes are used to determine the design.

1ST PAGES
Ferron, Kirby, and Lipien
Changing Criteria Designs
The changing criterion design (CCD) allows
researchers to implement an intervention that
shapes a given behavior in a gradual, stepwise
fashion with the goal of achieving a predetermined
outcome. This design is especially useful when
the rate, duration, or accuracy of a behavior is
best changed through small steps (e.g., shaping
by approximation), such as with reducing smoking
or increasing physical exercise. As shown in
Figure 33.6, the design includes an initial base-
line phase followed by multiple treatment phases
of varied lengths that are introduced over time.
Each treatment phase has its own preset criterion
to be met, and once stability is achieved, a more
stringent criterion for the next phase is established.
Researchers have recommended at least three to
four changes in the criterion level over the course
of the study (Gast & Ledford, 2014; Klein et al.,
2017). This process continues until the overall
outcome or goal is attained. This design has
several advantages: (a) at a minimum, it requires
only one participant, behavior, and setting;
(b) treatment does not have to be withdrawn;
(c) after a brief baseline phase, treatment is intro-
duced across cases concurrently (i.e., baselines
are not staggered); and (d) treatment efficacy is
evident when performance closely matches the
criterion (Byiers et al., 2012; Poling & Grossett,
1986). The internal validity of CCDs can be
enhanced by changing the distance between
criterion levels, varying the lengths of phases, and
100
90
80
Correct Responses
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43
Session
FIGURE 33.6.   Illustration of a changing criterion design.
10
1ST PAGES
including randomization procedures (Ferron et al.,
2019; Onghena et al., 2019).
Alternating Treatments Designs
The alternating treatments design (ATD) allows
researchers to compare within-case effects of
two or more distinctly different treatments with
repeated measurement of reversible behavior(s)
across sessions (Barlow & Hayes, 1979). The
rapid and relatively short duration of an ATD
can control threats to internal validity such as
changes within the participant that are not due
to the intervention but that impact the outcome
over time (i.e., maturation) and changes in the
way the outcome is measured at different times
(i.e., instrumentation; Wolery et al., 2018).
However, with ATDs, the researcher needs to
assume that there are no carry-over effects and
no interaction of treatments with each other.
To control for sequence effects, the researcher can
randomize treatment order with restrictions to
prevent no more than two consecutive sessions
of the same condition (i.e., restricted randomi­
zation; Onghena & Edgington, 1994). Study
outcomes are then graphed by associated treat-
ment condition using independent and different
data paths (see Figure 33.7). Unlike other SCEDs,
stable responding is not a prerequisite for changing
conditions, and thus, researchers may consider
the use of ATDs to study variable behavior that
would otherwise necessitate longer phases,
allowing for an efficient comparative analysis of

35
Number of Desirable Responses
30
25
20
15
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Baseline
FIGURE 33.7.   Illustration of an alternating treatment design.
differential treatment effectiveness. For example,
Peters et al. (2020) used an ATD to assess differ-
ential spelling performance in persons with visual
impairment and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
(ALS). Although spelling performance was
highly variable, the researchers were able to
compare accurate responding within and across
three different eye tracking and brain-computer
interface systems. As such, the ATD can be a
suitable option for researchers seeking to iden-
tify a more effective treatment or investigate the
extent to which two or more treatments differ
in effectiveness.
Repeated Acquisition Designs
The repeated acquisition design (RAD) is a type
of SCED used to repeatedly test brief interven-
tion effects on discrete operant behaviors such
as language or academic skills (e.g., vocabulary),
making it a feasible alternative to the ATD when
studying irreversible outcomes (Cohn & Paule,
1995). The RAD requires a priori assignment
of discrete stimuli or behaviors of relative
equivalency (i.e., difficulty) to sets targeted for
instruction and the repeated measurement of
an outcome conducted through pre- and post­
intervention probes over time (Kennedy, 2005;
Ledford & Gast, 2018). For example, Cohn and
colleagues (1993) examined the effects of lead
on animals’ skill acquisition and retention by
1ST PAGES
Single-Case Experimental Design
Session
Treatment A Treatment B
comparing pre- to postexposure performance.
More recently, Dennis and Whalon (2020)
used a RAD to compare preschoolers’ rates of
voca­bulary acquisition following computer-
assisted instruction or teacher-delivered
instruction. Advantages of the RAD include
the strength of the within-subjects design, ability
to evaluate treatment dosage and salience on
operant behaviors, and ability to examine the
extent to which responding across different
stimulus sets are a consequence of experimental
manipulation. Further, evidence of the credibility
of the design (Kratochwill et al., 2010) can be
enhanced with additional considerations, such
as procedures to determine stimulus equivalency,
randomization techniques, multiple cases, and
the addition of baseline and maintenance phases
(Kirby et al., 2021). As shown in Figure 33.8,
the researcher can strengthen the RAD by adding
control or comparison stimuli (i.e., stimuli that
are not taught).
STUDY PROCEDURES
In addition to selecting a design and experimental
tactics that align with the study purpose and
outcome of interest, single-case researchers
implement procedures to document reliability
of the outcome measurement, treatment fidelity,
generalization, and social validity.
11
Ferron, Kirby, and Lipien
12
10
Number of words correct (out of 12)
Post-probe
6
Pre-probe
0
1 2
FIGURE 33.8.   Illustration of a repeated acquisition design.
Reliability of Outcome Measurement
The reliability of outcome measurement is a key
variable in the interpretability of SCED study
results. Analysis and interpretability of SCED
outcomes hinge on the integrity of the data
reported by trained independent data collectors
and scorers. Poor reliability translates to high
rates of disagreement between independent data
collectors about the presence or absence of an
effect on the target behavior. If rates of disagree-
ment remain high and are not immediately
resolved, researchers introduce confounds in the
ability to make assumptions about intervention
effects, which threatens replicability of results
in future research (Ledford & Wolery, 2013).
Thus, a priori, the researcher should operation­
alize the dependent variable and measurement
procedures and train data collectors and scorers
to fidelity. Researchers should plan to have a
second independent data collector measure and/or
score outcomes for at least 20% of all observations
per phase or condition with a goal of 80% agree-
ment between the two data collectors (Lane &
Gast, 2014). Reliability is then usually reported
by researchers as a percent of inter-observer
agreement (IOA), inter-rater reliability, or inter-
rater agreement (Lane & Gast, 2014). To examine
measurement discrepancies, some researchers
12
Control stimuli Targeted stimuli
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Weeks
have also suggested graphical presentation of IOA
results over time to examine the extent to which
the levels of agreement are consistent within
and across experimental conditions (Ledford &
Wolery, 2013; Ledford et al., 2019). To guard
against instrumentation effects, where perhaps
the two raters drift in the same way over time
(e.g., each gets more lenient), sessions could
also be recorded and scored in random order
for each rater.
Treatment Fidelity
Treatment fidelity in single-case design refers to
the consistent implementation of an intervention
within and across study sessions. The efficacy
of an intervention is often highly dependent on
whether it has been implemented as intended.
Fidelity increases confidence that the intervention
is directly linked to changes in the target behavior.
A common approach to monitoring treatment
fidelity in single-case studies involves completing
a checklist to ensure that the intervention
is delivered according to plan. For example,
team members can document the amount of
time spent with each participant, the quantity
of feedback given to each participant, and any
notable changes within the testing environment.
The compiled information can help to assess the
1ST PAGES

need for implementation supports (Collier-Meek
et al., 2018). Adherence to treatment fidelity
enhances the internal validity of the study and
reduces the potential for Type II errors (Krasny-
Pacini & Evans, 2018).
Generalization
Planning for maintenance and generalization
phases can provide information about the extent
to which behavior change persists in other
contexts and over time. In SCED, generalization
refers to instances when trained skills or behaviors
resulting from experimental manipulation of
the independent variable transfer beyond experi-
mental conditions to more natural contexts
(Kendall, 1981; Stokes & Baer, 1977). In SCED
research, researchers can plan to evaluate gener-
alization effects across three categories: response
generalization, stimulus generalization, and/or
maintenance (Catania, 1992; Kendall, 1981).
Response generalization occurs when participants
encounter a discriminative stimulus that evokes
an untrained behavior of similar topography or
function to the trained response. For example,
say a researcher was interested in reducing a
child’s toy-grabbing behavior by teaching the
child to ask for a peer’s permission to share.
During the study, the researcher taught the child
to say, “May I have . . .”. However, presented
with the same antecedent condition later in the
day, the child made a spontaneous request using
the untrained phrase, “Can I please have . . .”
Conversely, researchers can document treatment
effects on stimulus generalization when partici-
pants engage in a target behavior in response to
an untrained stimulus or novel situation (Sidman,
1997). For example, Gunby et al. (2010) taught
abduction prevention skills to three children
with autism using behavioral skills training at
a day care facility. In a stimulus generalization
probe, one participant demonstrated the learned
skills in the community setting without explicit
instruction in this setting. In addition, all parti­
cipants demonstrated maintenance of such
skills after 1 month. In other words, the children
demonstrated generalization of treatment effects
over time in absence of the intervention. There
1ST PAGES
Single-Case Experimental Design
are numerous ways for researchers to contribute
support for external validity, such as conducting
follow-up observations poststudy, planning for
probes in novel contexts, and documenting
instances of response generalization. Regardless
of the specific measures taken, researchers should
consider ways to integrate these strategies into
their SCED.
Social Validity
One of the seven dimensions of applied behavior
analysis is the study of socially significant
behavior: “changes in behavior that are clinically
significant or actually make a difference in the
client’s life” (Kazdin, 1977, p. 427). The accept-
ability of intervention components, methods of
measurement, and experimental outcomes can
be equally as relevant to interventionists as a
measure of effectiveness, answering “For whom
does it work?” and “Will it continue in use when
I’m gone?” Attention to social validity is important
because interventions that are impractical or
unacceptable are less likely to be adopted (Leko,
2014; Lloyd & Heubusch, 1996). Behavior
scientists can use surveys and choice measures
to gather information about the social signifi-
cance of the research before and after a study
(Fuqua & Schwade, 1986). Additionally, structured
interviews with participants and stakeholders can
supplement measures of treatment adherence and
attrition (i.e., participant drop-out). Follow-up
interviews with participants and primary stake-
holders can provide information about whether
the research methods and designs are aligned with
the applied dimension of applied behavior analysis
(Baer et al., 1968; Kazdin, 1977; Wolf, 1978).
DATA ANALYSIS
The principal analysis method for SCEDs is
visual analysis of the graphed data (Barlow &
Hersen, 1984; Gast & Spriggs, 2014; Kratochwill
et al., 2010). During visual analyses researchers
engage in four steps: (a) documenting stable
baseline patterns, (b) examining the data within
each phase, (c) comparing adjacent and similar
phases, and (d) determining whether there are at
13
Ferron, Kirby, and Lipien
least three demonstrations of the effect at dif-
ferent points in time (Kratochwill et al., 2010).
In analyzing and comparing the data patterns
within and across phases, researchers attend to
six data features: (a) level, (b) trend, (c) vari-
ability, (d) immediacy of effect, (e) overlap, and
(f) consistency of patterns across similar phases
(Kratochwill et al., 2010). Visual analysis training
methods have been developed (Wolfe & Slocum,
2015) and visual analyses continue to serve
researchers using SCEDs well. However, they do
have some limitations. Indexing the probability
of falsely concluding an effect exists is difficult,
which leads to questions about Type I error control
(Fisch, 1998), and quantitative summaries of
the size of the effect can be helpful for research
synthesis and meta-analyses. Thus, a variety
of statistical analyses have been developed to
complement visual analyses.
For researchers who have incorporated random­
ization into their designs, it is possible to formally
control the probability of falsely concluding there
is an effect (i.e., Type I error) by using random-
ization tests if the randomization is done a priori
(Edgington & Onghena, 2007) or masked visual
analysis if the randomization is done during
response-guided experimentation (Ferron &
Levin, 2014). These randomization-based methods
can be appealing for testing the effect because
they do not require modeling assumptions, such
as temporal stability, independence, or normality
(Edgington, 1980). In addition, software to
conduct randomization tests is readily available
(Gafurov & Levin, 2020; Bulté & Onghena, 2009),
as is an application to facilitate masked visual
analysis (Moeyaert et al., 2021). However, these
randomization-based methods are limited to testing
the null hypothesis of no treatment effect.
Researchers who wish to provide a quantitative
estimate of the size of the effect must turn to
other options, including statistical modeling and
standardized effect estimation. When the study
contains a single case, extensions of regression
that allow researchers to account for potential
serial dependence (or autocorrelation in the
repeated observations) are available (Maggin et al.,
2011; Swaminathan et al., 2014). When the study
14
1ST PAGES
contains multiple cases (e.g., multiple-baseline
designs, multiple-probe designs), multilevel
models are available that account for the nesting
of the repeated observations within the cases
(Rindskopf, 2014; Rindskopf & Ferron, 2014;
Shadish et al., 2013; Van den Noortgate, &
Onghena, 2003). Parameter estimates from these
regression or multilevel models can be used as
raw score effect indices. For those that desire
standardized effect estimates, options include
effect sizes based on nonoverlap between adjacent
phases (Parker & Vannest, 2009; Parker et al.,
2011), mean differences standardized by within-
case variability (Busk & Serlin, 1992), mean differ-
ences standardized by between-case variability
(Pustejovsky et al., 2014; Shadish et al., 2014),
response ratios (Pustejovsky, 2018), and progress
toward a goal (Ferron et al., 2020).
SUMMARY
Single-case experimental designs (SCEDs) are
a collection of research methods for the study
of intervention effects on individuals. No single
method is always optimal because of differences
in study purposes (e.g., indexing the effective-
ness of an intervention versus comparing the
effectiveness of alternative interventions), target
outcomes (e.g., reversible versus nonreversible
behaviors), and practical constraints associated
with the research context and individual under
study. Rather than relying on a single method,
SCED researchers combine different experimental
tactics (e.g., baseline logic, response-guided
experimentation, within-case replication, across-
case replication, and randomization) to select
a design type (e.g., reversal, multiple-baseline,
multiple-probe, changing criterion, alternating
treatments, or repeated acquisition) that aligns
with their purpose, outcome, and research context.
Regardless of which tactics and design type are
employed, SCED researchers incorporate proce-
dures to ensure the outcome is measured reliably,
the intervention is implemented with fidelity,
issues of generalizability and social validity are
considered, and the primary outcome data are
graphed as a function of time to facilitate visual
analyses of the intervention effect.

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
Barlow, D. H., & Hayes, S. C. (1979). Alternating
treatments design: One strategy for comparing
the effects of two treatments in a single subject.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12(2),
199–210. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1979.12-199
Barlow, D. H., & Hersen, M. (1984). Single case expe­
rimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior
change. Pergamon.
Bulté, I., & Onghena, P. (2009). Randomization tests
for multiple-baseline designs: An extension of
the SCRT-R package. Behavior Research Methods,
41(2), 477–485. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.
41.2.477
Busk, P. L., & Serlin, R. C. (1992). Meta-analysis
of single-case research. In T. R. Kratochwill &
J. R. Levin (Eds.), Single-case research design
and analysis: New directions for psychology and
education (pp. 187–212). Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Byiers, B. J., Reichle, J., & Symons, F. J. (2012). Single-
subject experimental design for evidence-based
practice. American Journal of Speech-Language
Pathology, 21(4), 397–414. https://doi.org/10.1044/
1058-0360(2012/11-0036)
Catania, A. C. (1992). Learning. Prentice Hall.
Cohn, J., Cox, C., & Cory-Slechta, D. A. (1993). The
effects of lead exposure on learning in a multiple
repeated acquisition and performance schedule.
Neurotoxicology, 14(2-3), 329–346.
Cohn, J., & Paule, M. G. (1995). Repeated acquisition
of response sequences: The analysis of behavior
in transition. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral
Reviews, 19(3), 397–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0149-7634(94)00067-B
Collier-Meek, M. A., Fallon, L. M., & Gould, K.
(2018). How are treatment integrity data assessed?
Reviewing the performance feedback literature.
School Psychology Quarterly, 33(4), 517–526.
https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000239
Dennis, L. R., & Whalon, K. J. (2020). Effects of
teacher- versus application-delivered instruction
on the expressive vocabulary of at-risk preschool
children. Remedial and Special Education, 42(4),
1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932519900991
Edgington, E. S. (1980). Validity of randomization
tests for one-subject experiments. Journal of
Educational Statistics, 5(3), 235–251. https://
doi.org/10.3102/10769986005003235
1ST PAGES
Single-Case Experimental Design
Edgington, E. S., & Onghena, P. (2007). Randomization
tests (4th ed.). Chapman & Hall. https://doi.org/
10.1201/9781420011814
Engel, R. J., & Schutt, R. K. (2013). The practice of
research in social work (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Ferron, J., Goldstein, H., Olszewski, A., & Rohrer, L.
(2020). Indexing effects in single-case experimental
designs by estimating the percent of goal obtained.
Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and
Intervention, 14(1-2), 6–27. https://doi.org/
10.1080/17489539.2020.1732024
Ferron, J., Rohrer, L. L., & Levin, J. R. (2019). Randomi­
zation procedures for changing criterion designs.
Behavior Modification, 145445519847627. Advance
online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0145445519847627
Ferron, J. M., & Jones, P. (2006). Tests for the visual
analysis of response-guided multiple-baseline
data. Journal of Experimental Education, 75(1),
66–81. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.75.1.66-81
Ferron, J. M., & Levin, J. R. (2014). Single-case
permutation and randomization statistical tests:
Present status, promising new developments. In
T. R. Kratochwill & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Single-case
intervention research: Methodological and statistical
advances (pp. 153–183). American Psychological
Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14376-006
Ferron, J. M., Moeyaert, M., Van den Noortgate, W., &
Beretvas, S. N. (2014). Estimating causal effects
from multiple-baseline studies: Implications for
design and analysis. Psychological Methods, 19(4),
493–510. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037038
Fisch, G. S. (1998). Visual inspection of data revisited:
Do the eyes still have it? The Behavior Analyst,
21(1), 111–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/
BF03392786
Fuqua, R. W., & Schwade, J. (1986). Social validation
of applied behavioral research. In A. Poling &
R. W. Fuqua (Eds.), Research methods in applied
behavior analysis (pp. 265–292). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-8786-2_12
Gafurov, B. S., & Levin, J. R. ExPRT (Excel Package
of Randomization Tests): Statistical Analyses of
Single-Case Intervention Data; current Version 4.1
(March 2020) is retrievable from the ExPRT website
at http://ex-prt.weebly.com
Gallo, K. P., Comer, J. S., & Barlow, D. H. (2013).
Single-case experimental designs and small pilot
trial designs. In J. S. Comer & P. C. Kendall
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of research strategies
for clinical psychology (pp. 24–39). Oxford
University Press.
Gast, D. L., & Ledford, J. R. (Eds.). (2014). Single
case research methodology: Applications in special
15
Ferron, Kirby, and Lipien
education and behavioral sciences (2nd ed.).
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203521892
Gast, D. L., & Spriggs, A. D. (2014). Visual analysis
of graphic data. In D. L. Gast & J. R. Ledford
(Eds.), Single case research methodology: Applica-
tions in special education and behavioral sciences
(2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/
9780203521892-9
Gunby, K. V., Carr, J. E., & Leblanc, L. A. (2010).
Teaching abduction-prevention skills to children
with autism. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
43(1), 107–112. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.
2010.43-107
Horner, R. D., & Baer, D. M. (1978). Multiple-probe
technique: A variation on the multiple baseline.
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11(1), 189–196.
https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1978.11-189
Horner, R. H., & Odom, S. L. (2014). Constructing
single-case research designs: Logic and options.
In T. R. Kratochwill & J. R. Levin (Eds.),
School psychology series. Single-case intervention
research: Methodological and statistical advances
(pp. 27–51). American Psychological Association.
https://doi.org/10.1037/14376-002
Kazdin, A. E. (1977). Assessing the clinical or applied
importance of behavior change through social
validation. Behavior Modification, 1(4), 427–452.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014544557714001
Kazdin, A. E. (1980). Obstacles in using randomi­
zation tests in single-case experimentation.
Journal of Educational Statistics, 5(3), 253–260.
https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986005003253
Kendall, P. C. (1981). Assessing generalization and
the single-subject strategies. Behavior Modifica-
tion, 5(3), 307–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/
014544558153001
Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Single-case designs for educa-
tional research. Pearson.
Kirby, M. S., Spencer, T. D., & Ferron, J. M. (2021).
How to be RAD: Repeated acquisition design
features that enhance internal and external
validity. Perspectives on Behavior Science, 44(2-3),
389–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-021-
00301-2
Klein, L. A., Houlihan, D., Vincent, J. L., & Panahon,
C. J. (2017). Best practices in utilizing the
changing criterion design. Behavior Analysis in
Practice, 10(1), 52–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40617-014-0036-x
Koehler, M. J., & Levin, J. R. (1998). Regulated
randomization: A potentially sharper analytical
tool for the multiple baseline design. Psychological
Methods, 3(2), 206–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/
1082-989X.3.2.206
16
1ST PAGES
Krasny-Pacini, A., & Evans, J. (2018). Single-case
experimental designs to assess intervention
effectiveness in rehabilitation: A practical guide.
Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine,
61(3), 164–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rehab.
2017.12.002
Kratochwill, T. R., Hitchcock, J., Horner, R. H.,
Levin, J. R., Odom, S. L., Rindskopf, D. M., &
Shadish, W. R. (2010). Single-case designs tech­
nical documentation. Retrieved from What Works
Clearinghouse website: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/
wwc/Document/229
Lane, J. D., & Gast, D. L. (2014). Visual analysis
in single case experimental design studies:
Brief review and guidelines. Neuropsychological
Rehabilitation, 24(3-4), 445–463. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09602011.2013.815636
Ledford, J., & Gast, D. L. (2018). Combination and
other designs. In J. R. Ledford & D. L. Gast
(Eds.), Single case research methodology: Applica-
tions in special education and behavioral sciences
(3rd ed., pp. 335–364). Routledge. https://doi.org/
10.4324/9781315150666-12
Ledford, J. R., Barton, E. E., Severini, K. E., &
Zimmerman, K. N. (2019). A primer on single-
case research designs: Contemporary use and
analysis. American Journal on Intellectual and
Developmental Disabilities, 124(1), 35–56.
https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-124.1.35
Ledford, J. R., & Wolery, M. (2013). Effects of
plotting a second observer’s data on A-B-A-B
graphs when observer disagreement is present.
Journal of Behavioral Education, 22, 312–324.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-013-9178-0
Leko, M. M. (2014). The value of qualitative methods
in social validity research. Remedial and Special
Education, 35(5), 275–286. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0741932514524002
Lloyd, J. W., & Heubusch, J. D. (1996). Issues of social
validation in research on serving individuals with
emotional or behavioral disorders. Behavioral
Disorders, 22(1), 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/
019874299602200105
Maggin, D. M., Swaminathan, H., Rogers, H. J.,
O’Keeffe, B. V., Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2011).
A generalized least squares regression approach
for computing effect sizes in single-case research:
Application examples. Journal of School Psychology,
49(3), 301–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.
2011.03.004
Manolov, R., Solanas, A., & Sierra, V. (2019).
Extrapolating baseline trend in single-case data:
Problems and tentative solutions. Behavior Research
Methods, 51(6), 2847–2869. https://doi.org/
10.3758/s13428-018-1165-x

Moeyaert, M., Bursali, S., & Ferron, J. M. (2021).
SCD-MVA: A mobile application for conducting
single-case experimental design research during
the pandemic. Human Behavior and Emerging
Technologies, 3(1), 75–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/
hbe2.223
Morgan, D. L., & Morgan, R. K. (2009). Single-case
research methods for the behavioral and health
sciences. Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/
9781483329697
Murphy, R. J., & Bryan, A. J. (1980). Multiple-
baseline and multiple-probe designs: Practical
alternatives for special education assessment
and evaluation. The Journal of Special Education,
14(3), 325–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/
002246698001400306
Odom, S. L., Brantlinger, E., Gersten, R., Horner,
R. H., Thompson, B., & Harris, K. (2005).
Research in special education: Scientific methods
and evidence-based practices. Exceptional
Children, 71(2), 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/
001440290507100201
Onghena, P. (1992). Randomization tests for
extensions and variations of ABAB single-case
experimental designs: A rejoinder. Behavioral
Assessment, 14, 153–171.
Onghena, P., & Edgington, E. S. (1994). Random­
ization tests for restricted alternating treatments
designs. Behaviour Research and Therapy,
32(7), 783–786. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0005-7967(94)90036-1
Onghena, P., Tanious, R., De, T. K., & Michiels, B.
(2019). Randomization tests for changing criterion
designs. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 117,
18–27. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.brat.2019.01.005
Parker, R. I., & Vannest, K. (2009). An improved
effect size for single-case research: Nonoverlap
of all pairs. Behavior Therapy, 40(4), 357–367.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2008.10.006
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
Peters, B., Bedrick, S., Dudy, S., Eddy, B., Higger, M.,
Kinsella, M., McLaughlin, D., Memmott, T.,
Oken, B., Quivira, F., Spaulding, S., Erdogmus, D.,
& Fried-Oken, M. (2020). SSVEP BCI and eye
tracking use by individuals with late-stage ALS
and visual impairments. Frontiers in Human
Neuroscience, 14, 595890. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fnhum.2020.595890
Poling, A., & Grossett, D. (1986). Basic research designs
in applied behavior analysis. In A. Poling &
1ST PAGES
Single-Case Experimental Design
R. W. Fuqua (Eds.), Research methods in applied
behavior analysis. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-1-4684-8786-2_2
Pustejovsky, J. E. (2018). Using response ratios for
meta-analyzing single-case designs with behavioral
outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 68,
99–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.02.003
Pustejovsky, J. E., Hedges, L. V., & Shadish, W. 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
Rindskopf, D. (2014). Nonlinear Bayesian analysis
for single case designs. Journal of School Psychol-
ogy, 52(2), 179–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jsp.2013.12.003
Rindskopf, D., & Ferron, J. (2014). Using multilevel
models to analyze single-case design data. In T. R.
Kratochwill & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Single-case
intervention research: Statistical and methodological
advances (pp. 221–246). American Psychological
Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14376-008
Shadish, W. R., Hedges, L. V., & Pustejovsky, J. E.
(2014). Analysis and meta-analysis of single-case
designs with a standardized mean difference
statistic: A primer and applications. Journal of
School Psychology, 52(2), 123–147. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jsp.2013.11.005
Shadish, W. R., Kyse, E. N., & Rindskopf, D. M.
(2013). Analyzing data from single-case designs
using multilevel models: New applications and
some agenda items for future research. Psycho­
logical Methods, 18(3), 385–405. https://doi.org/
10.1037/a0032964
Sidman, M. (1960). Tactics of scientific research:
Evaluating experimental data in psychology.
Authors Cooperative, Inc.
Sidman, M. (1997). Equivalence relations. Journal
of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 68(2),
258–266. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1997.68-258
Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit
technology of generalization. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 10(2), 349–367. https://doi.org/
10.1901/jaba.1977.10-349
Swaminathan, H., Rogers, H. J., & Horner, R. H.
(2014). An effect size measure and Bayesian
analysis of single-case designs. Journal of School
Psychology, 52(2), 213–230. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jsp.2013.12.002
Tanious, R., & Onghena, P. (2020). A systematic
review of applied single-case research published
between 2016 and 2018: Study designs, randomi­
zation, data aspects, and data analysis. Advance
17
 Ferron, Kirby, and Lipien
online publication, Behavior Research Methods.
https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01502-4
Van den Noortgate, W., & Onghena, P. (2003).
Combining single-case experimental data using
hierarchical linear models. School Psychology
Quarterly, 18(3), 325–346. https://doi.org/
10.1521/scpq.18.3.325.22577
Wolery, M., Gast, D., & Ledford, J. R. (2018).
Comparative designs. In J. R. Ledford & D. L.
Gast (Eds.), Single case research methodology:
Applications in special education and behavioral
18
1ST PAGES
View publication stats
sciences (3rd ed., pp. 283–334). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315150666-11
Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for
subjective measurement or how applied behavior
analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 11(2), 203–214. https://doi.org/
10.1901/jaba.1978.11-203
Wolfe, K., & Slocum, T. A. (2015). A comparison
of two approaches to training visual analysis of
AB graphs. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
48(2), 472–477. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.212