Single case experimental designs: Introduction to a special Issue of Neuropsychological Rehabilitation

This paper introduces the Special Issue of Neuropsychological Rehabilitation on Single Case Experimental Design (SCED) methodology. SCED studies have a long history of use in evaluating behavioural and psychological interventions, but in recent years there has been a resurgence of interest in SCED methodology, driven in part by the development of standards for conducting and reporting SCED studies. Although there is consensus on some aspects of SCED methodology, the question of how SCED data should be analysed remains unresolved. This Special Issues includes two papers discussing aspects of conducting SCED studies, five papers illustrating use of SCED methodology in clinical practice, and nine papers that present different methods of SCED data analysis. A final Discussion paper summarises points of agreement, highlights areas where further clarity is needed, and ends with a set of resources that will assist researchers conduct and analyse SCED studies

Single-case experimental designs: Reflections on conduct and analysis

In this editorial discussion we reflect on the issues addressed by, and arising from, the papers in this Special Issue on Single Case Experimental Design (SCED) study methodology. We identify areas of consensus and disagreement regarding the conduct and analysis of SCED studies. Despite the long history of application of SCEDs in studies of interventions in clinical and educational settings, the field is still developing. There is an emerging consensus on methodological quality criteria for many aspects of SCEDs, but disagreement on what are the most appropriate methods of SCED data analysis. Our aim is to stimulate this ongoing debate and highlight issues requiring further attention from applied researchers and methodologists. In addition we offer tentative criteria to support decision making in relation to selection of analytical techniques in SCED studies. Finally, we stress that large-scale interdisciplinary collaborations, such as the current Special Issue, are necessary if SCEDs are going to play a significant role in the development of the evidence base for clinical practice

The methodological quality of aphasia research: an investigation using the PsycBITE™ database

This paper examines methodological quality of aphasia research using the Psychological database for Brain Injury Treatment Efficacy™(www.psycbite.com). PsycBITE™ includes five designs: Systematic Reviews (SR), Randomised Controlled Trials (RCT), non-RCT (NRCT); Case Series (CS) and Single Subject Designs (SSD). Of 310 studies indexed for aphasia: SR=8 (3%); RCT=22 (7%); NRCT=17 (5%); CS=48 (15%); SSD=215 (69%). Methodological quality ratings (MQR) using the PEDro scale (scored out of 10) were available for 9 RCTs (mean MQR=4.6 SD = 1.5), 5 NRCTs (mean MQR=2.3, SD =1.1), and 12 CSs (mean MQR=0.9, SD =0.7). Methodological quality is discussed with suggestions for future treatment studies

Reprint of “The Single-Case Reporting Guideline In BEhavioural interventions (SCRIBE) 2016: explanation and elaboration”

There is substantial evidence that research studies reported in the scientific literature do not provide adequate information so that readers know exactly what was done and what was found. This problem has been addressed by the development of reporting guidelines which tell authors what should be reported and how it should be described. Many reporting guidelines are now available for different types of research designs. There is no such guideline for one type of research design commonly used in the behavioral sciences, the single-case experimental design (SCED). The present study addressed this gap. This report describes the Single-Case Reporting guideline In BEhavioural interventions (SCRIBE) 2016, which is a set of 26 items that authors need to address when writing about SCED research for publication in a scientific journal. Each item is described, a rationale for its inclusion is provided, and examples of adequate reporting taken from the literature are quoted. It is recommended that the SCRIBE 2016 is used by authors preparing manuscripts describing SCED research for publication, as well as journal reviewers and editors who are evaluating such manuscripts.Published versio

The Single-Case Reporting Guideline In BEhavioural Interventions (SCRIBE) 2016 statement

We developed a reporting guideline to provide authors with guidance about what should be reported when writing a paper for publication in a scientific journal using a particular type of research design: the single-case experimental design. This report describes the methods used to develop the Single-Case Reporting guideline In BEhavioural interventions (SCRIBE) 2016. As a result of 2 online surveys and a 2-day meeting of experts, the SCRIBE 2016 checklist was developed, which is a set of 26 items that authors need to address when writing about single-case research. This article complements the more detailed SCRIBE 2016 Explanation and Elaboration article (Tate et al., 2016) that provides a rationale for each of the items and examples of adequate reporting from the literature. Both these resources will assist authors to prepare reports of single-case research with clarity, completeness, accuracy, and transparency. They will also provide journal reviewers and editors with a practical checklist against which such reports may be critically evaluated. We recommend that the SCRIBE 2016 is used by authors preparing manuscripts describing single-case research for publication, as well as journal reviewers and editors who are evaluating such manuscripts.Funding for the SCRIBE project was provided by the Lifetime Care and Support Authority of New South Wales, Australia. The funding body was not involved in the conduct, interpretation or writing of this work. We acknowledge the contribution of the responders to the Delphi surveys, as well as administrative assistance provided by Kali Godbee and Donna Wakim at the SCRIBE consensus meeting. Lyndsey Nickels was funded by an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship (FT120100102) and Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Cognition and Its Disorders (CE110001021). For further discussion on this topic, please visit the Archives of Scientific Psychology online public forum at http://arcblog.apa.org. (Lifetime Care and Support Authority of New South Wales, Australia; FT120100102 - Australian Research Council Future Fellowship; CE110001021 - Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence in Cognition and Its Disorders)Published versio

Suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and HIV infection

A cross-sectional study was performed to investigate the prevalence and predictors of suicidal ideation and past suicide attempt in an Australian sample of human imumunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive and HIV-negative homosexual and bisexual men. Sixty-five HIV-negative and 164 HIV-positive men participated. A suicidal ideation score was derived from using five items selected from the Beck Depression Inventory and the General Health Questionnaire (28-item version). Lifetime and current prevalence rates of psychiatric disorder were evaluated with the Diagnostic Interview Schedule Version-III-R. The HIV-positive (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] Stage IV) men (n=85) had significantly higher total suicidal ideation scores than the asymptomatic HIV-positive men (CDC Stage II/III) (n=79) and the HIV-negative men. High rates of past suicide attempt were detected in the HIV-negative (29%) and HIV-positive men (21%). Factors associated with suicidal ideation included being HIV-positive, the presence of current psychiatric disorder, higher neuroticism scores, external locus of control, and current unemployment. In the HIV-positive group analyzed separately, higher suicidal ideation was discriminated by the adjustment to HIV diagnosis (greater hopelessness and lower fighting spirit), disease factors (greater number of current acquired immunodeficiency syndrome [AIDS]-related conditions), and background variables (neuroticism). Significant predictors of a past attempted suicide were a positive lifetime history of psychiatric disorder (particularly depression diagnoses), a lifetime history of injection drug use, and a family history of suicide attempts. The findings indicate increased levels of suicidal ideation in symptomatic HIV-positive men and highlight the role that multiple psychosocial factors associated with suicidal ideation and attempted suicide play in this population

Single case experimental designs: introduction to a special issue of Neuropsychological Rehabilitation

This paper introduces the Special Issue of Neuropsychological Rehabilitation on Single Case Experimental Design (SCED) methodology. SCED studies have a long history of use in evaluating behavioural and psychological interventions, but in recent years there has been a resurgence of interest in SCED methodology, driven in part by the development of standards for conducting and reporting SCED studies. Although there is consensus on some aspects of SCED methodology, the question of how SCED data should be analysed remains unresolved. This Special Issues includes two papers discussing aspects of conducting SCED studies, five papers illustrating use of SCED methodology in clinical practice, and nine papers that present different methods of SCED data analysis. A final Discussion paper summarises points of agreement, highlights areas where further clarity is needed, and ends with a set of resources that will assist researchers conduct and analyse SCED studies