Abstract
This article introduces and describes the articles that are part of the thematic special series on investigating research questions to improve services for students with learning disabilities using single-case research design. The issue includes an article for peer reviewers that serves as a guide for decision-making and evaluation of single-case research design manuscripts. The other articles are intended for researchers who are interested in designing academic and behavioral interventions for students with LD using single-case research designs. The articles provide readers with descriptions of methods, approaches, and techniques that lead to high-quality research design.
What Is Single-Case Research?
Single-case research designs (SCRDs) experimentally test the effect of an intervention using a small group of participants and rely on repeated measures of a dependent variable under systematically designed conditions. For researchers in the learning disability (LD) field who are interested in individual differences, SCRDs are often useful when small samples with unique needs are available, when it is unethical to withhold treatment, and when cost and ethical considerations impact research design. Each participant acts as their own control with the goal of establishing a functional relation (i.e., the intervention is the cause of change in behavior).
Purpose of the SCRD Special Series
The purpose of this special series is to provide LD researchers with a rationale for using single-case designs as well as best practices for developing and implementing effective designs to answer research questions. Currently, there are single-case studies and manuscripts submitted for review that lack systematic demonstration of experimental control, show poor internal reliability, and fail to adequately demonstrate a functional relationship (see Gillespie & Graham, 2014; Jitendra et al., 2015; Konrad et al., 2007). Additional guidance and exemplars to support LD researchers are warranted. We anticipate this special series will be of interest to (a) higher education faculty responsible for teaching single-case design, research methods, and learning disabilities courses, and (b) researchers who are interested in academic intervention studies. The following text summarizes the articles in this series.
Reading and Mathematics Intervention
Berkeley and colleagues (2023) offer several strengths of, limitations of, and recommendations for the field based on their experiences as both researchers and reviewers of SCRD reading intervention studies. They use a study by Regan et al. (2014) to illustrate how reading researchers used a multiple probe SCRD to address questions of practice, strengths and limitations of the design, and implications for research design. Their emphasis on one study provides in-depth discussion of the design, one that is useful and practical for researchers. Berkeley et al. (2023) raise issues related to validity as well as reporting standards that impact application of research findings.
Like Berkeley and colleagues, Peltier et al. (2023) share common threats to internal and external validity when using SCRDs and implications for mathematics intervention researchers. They provide a review of SCRD studies published in journals with a focus on students with LD. They offer recommendations for conducting mathematics intervention research using SCRDs and recommendations for enhancing future research. Unlike Berkeley et al. (2021), Peltier et al. (2021) reviewed 13 mathematics intervention studies conducted by 10 author teams, providing readers with many examples of SCRDs. There were strengths and weaknesses across methodology and analyses among the studies. This approach provides readers with a realistic sampling of SCRDs with explanation of and recommendations for the design of future studies.
Interventions for Improving Behavioral Outcomes
The article by Contesse et al. (2023) describes the use of SCRDs to investigate interventions to improve social outcomes for students with LD. They describe applied studies (Capizzi et al., 2010; Gage et al., 2018) that investigated professional development related to teachers’ design and execution of structured learning environments to support students’ social behavior. Contesse et al. (2023) also describe studies that used SCRD to investigate Check-in/Check-out, a targeted group intervention (Campbell & Anderson, 2011), and an individualized intervention (Sanford & Horner, 2013).
Contesse et al. (2023) discuss the analytic, technological, and effective components of single-case research design as found in the selected articles. They (2023) summarize the authors’ approaches, providing context and rationale, and discuss the extent to which authors met quality indicators for SCRDs. Readers may find the discussion helpful in designing their own investigations of behavioral interventions for students with LD.
Recommendations for Reviewers
The article by Hott et al. (2023) offers guidance to reviewers of SCRD studies. The authors steer readers through the guidelines that evolved over the past few decades. There are guidelines for describing students with LD (Rosenberg et al., 1994) as well as specific indicators for quality, such as The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Standards Handbook (Version 4.1, 2020) and the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) Standards for Evidence-Based Practices in Special Education (CEC, 2014).
Hott et al. (2023) also discuss how reviewers navigate the situations in applied research that conflict with analytic precision. Evaluating effective research may be complicated in balancing metrics with practicality, so the authors provide examples and suggestions for reviewers. Hott et al. (2023) also discuss communication with authors and the process by which reviewers identify weaknesses and suggest revisions to strengthen a manuscript.
Summary
The articles in this special series provide an overview of high-quality indicators of single-case research design for students with LD and their application by reviewers. The intent of these articles is to explain the indicators of and logic for their inclusion. The articles guide reviewers and researchers in their decision-making processes and support quality single-case research design.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
