Attention Process Training-3 to improve reading comprehension in mild aphasia: A single-case experimental design study.

People with aphasia frequently present with nonlinguistic deficits, in addition to their compromised language abilities, which may contribute to their problems with reading comprehension. Treatment of attention, working memory and executive control may improve reading comprehension in individuals with aphasia, particularly those with mild reading problems. This single-case experimental design study evaluated the efficacy of Attention Process Training-3, an intervention combining direct attention training and metacognitive facilitation, for improving reading comprehension in individuals with mild aphasia. A multiple baseline design across six participants was used to evaluate treatment effects. The primary outcome measure was a maze reading task. Cognitive measures were administered pre- and post-treatment. Visual inspection of graphed maze reading performance data indicated a basic effect between APT-3 and improved maze reading for three of the six participants. Quantitative analyses, using Tau-U, corroborated findings identified through visual analysis. The overall effect size was significant (Tau = .48, p = .01). Results suggest that APT-3 has the potential to improve reading in individuals with aphasia, but that it may be more efficacious under certain conditions. Treatment and participant variables, including intensity of treatment and metacognitive strategy usage, are discussed as potential influences on participants' responsiveness to APT-3.

Training adults with acquired brain injury how to help-seek when wayfinding: an understudied critical life skill.

The objective of this study was to investigate the efficacy of a group treatment protocol called NICE (Noticing you have a problem, Identifying the information you need for help, Compensatory strategies, Evaluating progress) to train help-seeking when wayfinding for individuals with acquired brain injury (ABI). Seven participants completed the NICE group treatment in an outpatient rehabilitation department at a university medical centre. A single subject multiple baseline design was employed to evaluate the efficacy of the NICE group treatment. The Social Behaviour Rating Scale and the Executive Function Route-Finding Task- Revised were repeated measures used to evaluate potential changes in help-seeking and wayfinding. Secondary outcome measures included pre- and post-treatment evaluation of social problem solving and social cognition. Results revealed that all participants improved on measures of help-seeking and wayfinding. Patterns of improvement and implications for rehabilitation are discussed. This is the first experimental study to evaluate the treatment of help-seeking behaviours and discuss its application to wayfinding in adults with ABI. Preliminary evidence supports further investigation of the NICE group treatment protocol.

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. SCIENTIFIC ABSTRACT Reporting guidelines, such as the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement, improve the reporting of research in the medical literature (Turner et al., 2012 ). Many such guidelines exist and the CONSORT Extension to Nonpharmacological Trials (Boutron et al., 2008 ) provides suitable guidance for reporting between-groups intervention studies in the behavioural sciences. The CONSORT Extension for N-of-1 Trials (CENT 2015) was developed for multiple crossover trials with single individuals in the medical sciences (Shamseer et al., 2015 ; Vohra et al., 2015 ), but there is no reporting guideline in the CONSORT tradition for single-case research used in the behavioural sciences. We developed the Single-Case Reporting guideline In BEhavioural interventions (SCRIBE) 2016 to meet this need. This Statement article describes the methodology of the development of the SCRIBE 2016, along with the outcome of 2 Delphi surveys and a consensus meeting of experts. We present the resulting 26-item SCRIBE 2016 checklist. The 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.

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

Reporting guidelines, such as the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement, improve the reporting of research in the medical literature (Turner et al., 2012). Many such guidelines exist, and the CONSORT Extension to Nonpharmacological Trials (Boutron et al., 2008) provides suitable guidance for reporting between-groups intervention studies in the behavioral sciences. The CONSORT Extension for N-of-1 Trials (CENT 2015) was developed for multiple crossover trials with single individuals in the medical sciences (Shamseer et al., 2015; Vohra et al., 2015), but there is no reporting guideline in the CONSORT tradition for single-case research used in the behavioral sciences. We developed the Single-Case Reporting guideline In Behavioral interventions (SCRIBE) 2016 to meet this need. This Statement article describes the methodology of the development of the SCRIBE 2016, along with the outcome of 2 Delphi surveys and a consensus meeting of experts. We present the resulting 26-item SCRIBE 2016 checklist. The 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.

Regression models and effect size measures for single case designs.

A regression modelling approach for the analysis of single case designs (SCDs) is described in this paper. The approach presented addresses two key issues in the analysis of SCDs. The first issue is that of serial dependence among the observations in SCDs. The second issue is that of an effect size measure appropriate for SCDs. As with traditional between-subjects experimental designs, effect size measures are critical in assessing the impact of interventions in SCDs. Although effect size measures when there is level change without trend are straightforward to obtain and have been well studied, the situation is different when there are changes in both level and trend. An effect size measure that combines changes in levels and slopes and that is comparable to the d-type effect size measure obtained in between-subjects designs is presented. Finally, an inferential procedure for assessing the effect of the intervention based on the effect size measure is provided and illustrated.

Life cycle water consumption for shale gas and conventional natural gas.

Shale gas production represents a large potential source of natural gas for the nation. The scale and rapid growth in shale gas development underscore the need to better understand its environmental implications, including water consumption. This study estimates the water consumed over the life cycle of conventional and shale gas production, accounting for the different stages of production and for flowback water reuse (in the case of shale gas). This study finds that shale gas consumes more water over its life cycle (13-37 L/GJ) than conventional natural gas consumes (9.3-9.6 L/GJ). However, when used as a transportation fuel, shale gas consumes significantly less water than other transportation fuels. When used for electricity generation, the combustion of shale gas adds incrementally to the overall water consumption compared to conventional natural gas. The impact of fuel production, however, is small relative to that of power plant operations. The type of power plant where the natural gas is utilized is far more important than the source of the natural gas.

Single-case intervention research design standards: Additional proposed upgrades and future directions.

Single-case intervention research design standards have evolved considerably over the past decade. These standards serve the dual role of assisting in single-case design (SCD) intervention research methodology and as guidelines for literature syntheses within a particular research domain. In a recent article (Kratochwill et al., 2021), we argued for a need to clarify key features of these standards. In this article we offer additional recommendations for SCD research and synthesis standards that have been either underdeveloped or missing in the conduct of research and in literature syntheses. Our recommendations are organized into three categories: expanding design standards, expanding evidence standards, and expanding the applications and consistency of SCDs. The recommendations we advance are for consideration for future standards, research design training, and they are especially important to guide the reporting of SCD intervention investigations as they enter the literature-synthesis phase of evidence-based practice initiatives.

Advancing the Application and Use of Single-Case Research Designs: Reflections on Articles from the Special Issue.

This special issue of Perspective on Behavior Science is a productive contribution to current advances in the use and documentation of single-case research designs. We focus in this article on major themes emphasized by the articles in this issue and suggest directions for improving professional standards focused on the design, analysis, and dissemination of single-case research.

Honoring Uncontrolled Events: Commentary on Slocum et al.

In this special section of Perspectives on Behavior Science, Slocum et al. (2022) provide a summary of the logic and protocol for the construction, implementation, and analysis of single-case multiple-baseline designs. A major contribution of this article is a reassessment of the nonconcurrent multiple baseline design as a credible approach to documenting experimental control. In this commentary we provide considerations for readers as they approach the Slocum et al. article and suggest that although the resurrection of nonconcurrent multiple-baseline designs to a higher status is warranted, researchers will find more control for threats to internal validity in concurrent multiple-baseline designs, and the concurrent format should remain the preferred option.

Single-case design standards: An update and proposed upgrades.

In this paper, we provide a critique focused on the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Standards for Single-Case Research Design (Standards 4.1). Specifically, we (a) recommend the use of visual-analysis to verify a single-case intervention study's design standards and to examine the study's operational issues, (b) identify limitations of the design-comparable effect-size measure and discuss related statistical matters, (c) review the applicability and practicality of Standards 4.1 to single-case designs (SCDs), and (d) recommend inclusion of content pertaining to diversity, equity, and inclusion in future standards. Within the historical context of the WWC Pilot Standards for Single-Case Design (1.0), we suggest that Standards 4.1 may best serve as standards for meta-analyses of SCDs but will need to make clear distinctions among the various types of SCD studies that are included in any research synthesis. In this regard, we argue for transparency in SCD studies that meet design standards and those that do not meet design standards in any meta-analysis emanating from the WWC. The intent of these recommendations is to advance the science of SCD research both in research synthesis and in promoting evidence-based practices.