Single–case research designs (SCRDs) are rigorous methods used to investigate the effects of interventions on socially important outcomes. A hallmark of SCRDs is repeated measurement of observable behavior presented in time–series graphs. The construction of time–series graphs can inflate Type I or Type II errors made via visual analysis. In the current investigation, we included all SCRDs published in four flagship journals in the field of learning disabilities (Journal of Learning Disabilities, Learning Disabilities Quarterly, Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, Journal of Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal) over the last decade. A total of 47 studies including 315 graphs were included. Our findings suggest that ordinate scaling was appropriate across a majority of graphs; graphs, however, did not adhere to recommendations for x:y ratio or DPPXYR.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaerD. M., WolfM. M., & RisleyT. 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
2.
CookB. G., BuysseV., KlingnerJ., LandrumT. J., McWilliamR. A., TankersleyM., & TestD. 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
3.
CooperJ., HeronT., & HewardW. (2020). Applied behavior analysis (3rd Ed.). New York, NY: Pearsonl.
4.
DartE. H., & RadleyK. C. (2017). The impact of ordinate scaling on the visual analysis of single–case data. Journal of School Psychology, 63, 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.03.008
5.
DartE. H., & RadleyK. C. (2018). Toward a standard assembly of linear graphs. School Psychology Quarterly, 33(3), 350–355. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000269
6.
DatchukS. M., & RodgersD. B. (2018). Text writing within simple sentences: A writing fluency intervention for students with high–incidence disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 34(1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12185
7.
DeProsperoA., & CohenS. (1979). Inconsistent visual analyses of intrasubject data. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12(4), 573–579. http://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1979.12–573
8.
EspinC. A., WaymanM. M., DenoS. L., McMasterK. L., & de RooijM. (2017). Data–based decision–making: Developing a method for capturing teachers’ understanding of CBM graphs. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32(1), 8–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12123
9.
FerronJ. M., JooS. H., & LevinJ. R. (2017). A Monte Carlo evaluation of masked visual analysis in response–guided versus fixed–criteria multiple–baseline designs. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 50(4), 701–716. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.410
10.
GouldK., GaitherJ., DartE., & WeaverA. D. (2018). A practical guide to single case design graphing. Communique, 47(1), 22–25.
11.
KauffmanJ., WileyA., TraversJ., BadarJ., & AnastasiouD. (2021). Endrew and FAPE: Concepts and implications for all students with disabilities. Behavior Modification, 45(1), 177–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445519832990
12.
KazdinA. (2019). Single–case experimental designs. Evaluating interventions in research and clinical practice. Behavior Research and Therapy, 117, 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2018.11.015
13.
KennedyC. (2005). Single–case designs for educational research. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
14.
KratochwillT. R., HitchcockJ., HornerR. H., LevinJ. R., OdomS. L., RindskopfD. M., & ShadishW. R. (2010). Single–case designs technical documentation. Washington, DC: What Works Clearinghouse. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/wwc_scd.pdf
15.
KratochwillT. R., HitchcockJ. H., HornerR. H., LevinJ. R., OdomS. L., RindskopfD. M., & ShadishW. R. (2013). Single–case intervention research design standards. Remedial and Special Education, 34(1), 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932512452794
16.
KubinaR. M., KostewiczD. E., BrennanK. M., & KingS. A. (2017). A critical review of line graphs in behavior analytic journals. Educational Psychology Review, 29(3), 583–598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648–015–9339–x
17.
LedfordJ. R., BartonE. E., SeveriniK. E., ZimmermanK. N., & PokorskiE. A. (2019). Visual display of graphic data in single case design studies: Systematic review and expert preference analysis. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 54(4), 315–327.
18.
LedfordJ. R., & GastD. L. (2018). Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315150666
19.
McKennaJ. W., FlowerA., Kyung KimM., CiulloS., & HaringC. (2015). A systematic review of function–based interventions for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 30(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12049
20.
McKevettN. M., KrommingaK. R., RuedyA., RoessleinR., RunningK., & CoddingR. S. (2020). The effects of Motion Math: Bounce on students’ fraction knowledge. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 35(1), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12211
21.
ParsonsonB. S., & BaerD. M. (1978). Training generalized improvisation of tools by preschool children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11(3), 363–380. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1978.11–363
22.
PeltierC., McKennaJ. W., SinclairT. E., GarwoodJ., & VannestK. J. (2021). Brief report: Ordinate scaling and axis proportions of single–case graphs in two prominent EBD journals from 2010 to 2019. Behavioral Disorders. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0198742920982587
23.
PeltierC., MuharibR., HaasA., & DowdyA. (2021). A decade review of two potential analysis altering variables in graph construction. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803–021–04959–0
24.
RadleyK. C., DartE. H., & WrightS. J. (2018). The effect of data points per x–to y–axis ratio on visual analysts evaluation of single–case graphs. School Psychology Quarterly, 33(2), 314–322. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000243
25.
SatsangiR., HammerR., & HoganC. D. (2019). Video modeling and explicit instruction: A comparison of strategies for teaching mathematics to students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 34(1), 35–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12189
26.
ShenM., & TroiaG. A. (2018). Teaching children with language–learning disabilities to plan and revise compare–contrast texts. Learning Disability Quarterly, 41(1), 44–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948717701260
27.
U.S. Department of Education (2021). Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs, 42nd Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2020, Washington, D.C.
28.
van den BoschR. M., EspinC. A., ChungS., & SaabN. (2017). Data–based decision–making: Teachers’ comprehension of curriculum–based measurement progress–monitoring graphs. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32(1), 46–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12122
29.
WagnerD. L., Hammerschmidt–SnidarichS. M., EspinC. A., SeifertK., & McMasterK. L. (2017). Pre–service teachers’ interpretation of CBM progress monitoring data. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32(1), 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12125
30.
What Works Clearinghouse (2020). What works clearinghouse: Procedures handbook version 4.0. Institute of Education Sciences. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Handbooks
31.
What Works Clearinghouse (2020). What works clearinghouse: Procedures handbook version 4.1. Institute of Education Sciences. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Handbooks
32.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2020). What works clearinghouse: Standards handbook version 4.1. Institute of Education Sciences. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Handbooks
33.
ZeuchN., FörsterN., & SouvignierE. (2017). Assessing teachers. competencies to read and interpret graphs from learning progress assessment: Results from tests and interviews. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32(1), 61–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12126 *Denotes study was included in the systematic review
34.
*AlvesK. D., KennedyM. J., BrownT. S., & SolisM. (2015). Story grammar instruction with third and fifth grade students with learning disabilities and other struggling readers. Learning Disabilities–A Contemporary Journal, 13(1), 73–93.
35.
*AyalaS. M., & O'ConnorR. (2013). The effects of video self–modeling on the decoding skills of children at risk for reading disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28(3), 142–154.
36.
*BarberM., CartledgeG., CouncilM.III, KonradM., GardnerR., & TelesmanA. O. (2018). The effects of computerassisted culturally relevant repeated readings on English learners’ fluency and comprehension. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 16(2), 205–229.
37.
*Benedek–WoodE., MasonL. H., WoodP. H., HoffmanK. E., & McGuireA. (2014). An experimental examination of quick writing in the middle school science classroom. Learning Disabilities–A Contemporary Journal, 12(1), 69–92.
38.
*BillingsleyG. M., ThomasC. N., & WebberJ. A. (2018). Effects of student choice of instructional method on the learning outcomes of students with comorbid learning and emotional/behavioral disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 41(4), 213–226.
39.
*BryantB. R., BryantD. P., PorterfieldJ., DennisM. S., FalcomataT., ValentineC., & BellK. (2016). The effects of a Tier 3 intervention on the mathematics performance of second grade students with severe mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(2), 176–188.
40.
*BurkeL., PollG., & FieneJ. (2017). Response to an expository writing strategy across middle school RtI tiers. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 15(1), 85–101.
41.
*BurnsM. K., WalickC., SimonsonG. R., DominguezL., HarelstadL., KincaidA., & NelsonG. S. (2015). Using a conceptual understanding and procedural fluency heuristic to target math interventions with students in early elementary. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 30(2), 52–60.
42.
*CoulterG. A., & LambertM. C. (2015). Access to general education curriculum: The effect of preteaching key words upon fluency and accuracy in expository text. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38(4), 248–256.
43.
*DatchukS. M., & RodgersD. B. (2019). Text writing within simple sentences: A writing fluency intervention for students with high–incidence disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 34(1), 23–34.
44.
*De La PazS., & ShermanC. K. (2013). Revising strategy instruction in inclusive settings: Effects for English learners and novice writers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28(3), 129–141.
45.
*DennisM. S. (2015). Effects of tier 2 and tier 3 mathematics interventions for second graders with mathematics difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 30(1), 29–42.
46.
*DennisM. S., SorrellsA. M., & FalcomataT. S. (2016). Effects of two interventions on solving basic fact problems by second graders with mathematics learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 39(2), 95–112.
47.
*DoablerC. T., ClarkeB., FienH., BakerS. K., KostyD. B., & CaryM. S. (2015). The science behind curriculum development and evaluation: Taking a design science approach in the production of a tier 2 mathematics curriculum. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38(2), 97–111.
48.
*EnnisR. P., & LosinskiM. (2019). SRSD fractions: Helping students at risk for disabilities add/subtract fractions with unlike denominators. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 52(5), 399–412.
49.
*EvmenovaA. S., GraffH. J., JeromeM. K., & BehrmannM. M. (2010). Word prediction programs with phonetic spelling support: Performance comparisons and impact on journal writing for students with writing difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25(4), 170–182.
50.
*FarmerJ. L., AllsoppD. H., & FerronJ. M. (2015). Impact of the personal strengths program on self–determination levels of college students with LD and/or ADHD. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38(3), 145–159.
51.
*FishleyK. M., KonradM., HesslerT., & KeeseyS. (2012). Effects of GO FASTER on morpheme definition fluency for high school students with high–incidence disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27(3), 104–115.
52.
*FloresM. M., HintonV. M., & SchweckK. B. (2014). Teaching multiplication with regrouping to students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29(4), 171–183.
53.
*Freeman–GreenS. M., O'BrienC., WoodC. L., & HittS. B. (2015). Effects of the SOLVE strategy on the mathematical problem solving skills of secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 30(2), 76–90.
54.
*GrünkeM., JanningA. M., & SperlingM. (2016). The effects of a peer–tutoring intervention on the text production of students with learning and speech problems: A case report. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 14(2), 225–235.
55.
*GrünkeM., WilbertJ., & StegemannK. C. (2013). Analyzing the effects of story mapping on the reading comprehension of children with low intellectual abilities. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 11(2), 51–64.
56.
*HelmanA. L., CalhoonM. B., & KernL. (2015). Improving science vocabulary of high school English language learners with reading disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38(1), 40–52.
57.
*HughesE. M. (2019). Point of view video modeling to teach simplifying fractions to middle school students with mathematical learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 17(1), 41–57.
58.
*JozwikS. L., & DouglasK. H. (2017). Effects of multicomponent academic vocabulary instruction for English learners with learning difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 40(4), 237–250.
59.
*KongJ. E., & OroscoM. J. (2016). Word–problem–solving strategy for minority students at risk for math difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 39(3), 171–181.
60.
*KongJ. E., & SwansonH. L. (2019). The effects of a paraphrasing intervention on word problem–solving accuracy of English learners at risk of mathematic disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 42(2), 92–104.
61.
*LiuJ., & XinY. P. (2017). The effect of eliciting repair of mathematics explanations of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 40(3), 132–145.
62.
*ManclD. B., MillerS. P., & KennedyM. (2012). Using the concrete–representational–abstract sequence with integrated strategy instruction to teach subtraction with regrouping to students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27(4), 152–166.
63.
*McKevettN. M., KrommingaK. R., RuedyA., RoessleinR., RunningK., & CoddingR. S. (2020). The Effects of Motion Math: Bounce on Students’ Fraction Knowledge. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 35(1), 25–35.
64.
*MiltonJ. H., FloresM. M., MooreA. J., TaylorJ. L. J., & BurtonM. E. (2019). Using the concrete–representational–abstract sequence to teach conceptual understanding of basic multiplication and division. Learning Disability Quarterly, 42(1), 32–45.
65.
*MonemR., BennettK. D., & BarbettaP. M. (2018). The Effects of Low–Tech and High–Tech Active Student Responding Strategies during History Instruction for Students with SLD. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 16(1), 87–106.
66.
*NessB. M., & SohlbergM. M. (2013). Self–regulated assignment attack strategy: Evaluating the effects of a classroomlevel intervention on student management of curricular activities in a resource context. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 11(1), 35–52.
67.
*OkM. W., & BryantD. P. (2016). Effects of a strategic intervention with iPad practice on the multiplication fact performance of fifth–grade students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 39(3), 146–158.
68.
*OroscoM. J. (2014). Word problem strategy for Latino English language learners at risk for math disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(1), 45–53.
69.
*RouseC. A., Alber–MorganS. R., CullenJ. M., & SawyerM. (2014). Using prompt fading to teach self–questioning to fifth graders with LD: Effects on reading comprehension. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29(3), 117–125.
70.
*SatsangiR., & BouckE. C. (2015). Using virtual manipulative instruction to teach the concepts of area and perimeter to secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38(3), 174–186.
71.
*SatsangiR., BouckE. C., Taber–DoughtyT., BofferdingL., & RobertsC. A. (2016). Comparing the effectiveness of virtual and concrete manipulatives to teach algebra to secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 39(4), 240–253.
72.
*SatsangiR., HammerR., & HoganC. D. (2018). Studying virtual manipulatives paired with explicit instruction to teach algebraic equations to students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 41(4), 227–242.
73.
*SatsangiR., HammerR., & EvmenovaA. S. (2018). Teaching multistep equations with virtual manipulatives to secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33(2), 99–111.
74.
*SatsangiR., HammerR., & HoganC. D. (2019). Video modeling and explicit instruction: A comparison of strategies for teaching mathematics to students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 34(1), 35–46.
75.
*ShenM., & TroiaG. A. (2018). Teaching children with language–learning disabilities to plan and revise compare–contrast texts. Learning Disability Quarterly, 41(1), 44–61.
76.
*Viel–RumaK., HouchinsD. E., JolivetteK., FredrickL. D., & GamaR. (2010). Direct instruction in written expression: The effects on English speakers and English language learners with disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25(2), 97–108.
*WalkerA. R., & TestD. W. (2011). Using a Self–Advocacy intervention on African American college students’ ability to request academic accommodations. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(3), 134–144.
79.
*WieberA. E., EvoyK., McLaughlinT. F., DerbyK. M., KelloggE., WilliamsR. L., PetersonS. M. & RinaldiL. (2017). The effects of a modified direct instruction procedure on time telling for a third grade student with learning disabilities with a brief comparison of interesting and boring formats. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 15(2), 239–248.
80.
*ZhangD., DingY., StegallJ., & MoL. (2012). The effect of visual–chunking–representation accommodation on geometry testing for students with math disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27(4), 167–177.
81.
*ZhangD., SteckerP., HuckabeeS., & MillerR. (2016). Strategic development for middle school students struggling with fractions: Assessment and intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(5), 515–531.
