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.

Academic and behavior combined support: A single-case practice-based replication study.

The purpose of this research was to conduct a practice-based replication of Academic and Behavior Combined Support (ABC Support), a previously developed and experimentally evaluated supplemental intervention that merges a combined focus on reading fluency and academic engagement. In the present study, a school-based interventionist and data collector had access to implementation resources online and participated in virtual training and coaching. Four Grade 2 students received the ABC Support intervention for 6 weeks in their school. Students' oral fluency on training and non-training reading passages, as well as occurrence of engagement and disruptive behaviors during universal reading instruction, were measured repeatedly across baseline, intervention, and follow-up phases in a multiple-baseline design. In concert with prior empirical findings on ABC Support, analyses revealed improvement from baseline to intervention for both reading and behavior outcomes, as well as from baseline to follow-up assessments. Empirical contributions of the study are offered within the context of replication research and an implementation science perspective. We also emphasize the importance of telecommunication for practice-based research evaluation of interventions.

Assessing teachers' intervention-related expectations and self-efficacy: An examination of the factor structure of the implementation beliefs assessment.

Individual-level determinants are hypothesized to enable or prevent successful implementation of evidence-based practices, yet there are limited options for measuring theory-informed, individual-level determinants that influence teachers' and other implementers' delivery of school-based interventions. The goal of this study was to develop a self-report scale that measures variables that have been associated with initial and sustained behavior change related to school-based intervention implementation according to the health action process approach (HAPA). Participants were a nationally representative sample of kindergarten through Grade 12 public school teachers, stratified by grade level and geographical region. Item generation was based on a systematic review of the literature on outcome expectations and self-efficacy, the core constructs related to initiating and sustaining behavior change from the HAPA and in consultation with the theory developer. The sample was randomly split; half of the sample was used for exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and the other half was used for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The EFA resulted in a final factor structure of three dimensions of the Implementation Beliefs Assessment (IBA): (a) implementation self-efficacy, (b) positive outcome expectations, and (c) negative outcome expectations. This structure was supported in the other half of the sample using CFA. Additional analyses supported the reliability of IBA data. The IBA represents a step forward toward psychometrically sound measurement of factors associated with initial and sustained behavior change. Implications for future research are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Problem solving team interventions: Web-based and consultant-based experimental evaluations.

This research was designed to develop, implement, and evaluate an assessment and intervention protocol to increase problem-solving teams' (PSTs) adoption and implementation of evidence-based practices aimed at students with disruptive behavior problems. Participants included 15 PSTs. Adopting single-case design methodology, we examined whether a customized set of assessment and intervention consultant-led intervention procedures could be used to improve the activities, process, and recommendations of PSTs compared to a web-based intervention. We were interested in evaluating two variations of the problem-solving model based on the team initiated problem-solving (TIPS) approach. TIPS includes steps to successful problem solving and solution implementation for student academic and behavioral concerns. Based on visual analysis and statistical randomization tests, we found that a teleconsultation web-based model of PST intervention was not effective in improving the functioning of the PST. In contrast, a customized, consultation-led intervention model with PST facilitators that followed this approach was found to be effective in improving both the foundation and thoroughness of the PST's problem solving. Implications of future PST improvement models for practice and research are discussed.

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.

Examining and Enhancing the Methodological Quality of Nonconcurrent Multiple-Baseline Designs.

In this article we respond to the recent recommendation of Slocum et al. (2022), who provided conceptual and methodological recommendations for reconsidering the credibility and validity of the nonconcurrent multiple-baseline design. We build on these recommendations and offer replication and randomization upgrades that should further improve the status of the nonconcurrent version of the design in standards and single-case design research. Although we suggest that the nonconcurrent version should be an acceptable methodological option for single-case design researchers, the traditional concurrent multiple-baseline design should generally be the design of choice.

Randomized Single-Case Intervention Designs and Analyses for Health Sciences Researchers: A Versatile Clinical Trials Companion.

AIM: An expository note introduces health sciences researchers to randomized single-case intervention designs, an adaptation of interrupted time-series methodology, and the staple of a scientifically credible small-sample research paradigm. METHODS: Detailed examples illustrating two different randomized single-case procedures are presented to highlight the techniques' advantages relative to small-sample nonparametric procedures that are commonly applied in the medical and health sciences fields. RESULTS: Numerous positive outcomes, based on both statistical simulation studies and actual intervention research investigations, support the applicability and value of these procedures. CONCLUSION: Randomized single-case intervention designs are recommended for consideration by health sciences researchers.

Incorporating feasibility protocols in intervention research.

In this paper, we review some dimensions of feasibility research. Feasibility research focuses on the intervention process and addresses questions about whether and how an intervention can be evaluated and implemented. Feasibility studies are implemented prior to conducting an outcome-focused pilot study or full-scale evaluation to test the effectiveness of an intervention. We propose a feasibility framework that includes 10 possible dimensions to evaluate in a feasibility trial, including (a) recruitment capability, (b) data collection procedures, (c) design procedures, (d) social validity, (e) practicality, (f) integration into existing systems, (g) adaptability, (h) implementation, (i) effectiveness, and (j) generalizability. Among these dimensions we offer some priorities that researchers can consider in establishing feasibility. Although feasibility investigations can advance evidence-based practice in psychology and education, we review current challenges for researchers to consider when incorporating a feasibility protocol into their intervention research agenda.

Academic and Behavior Combined Support: Evaluation of an integrated supplemental intervention for early elementary students.

In current multi-tier models, students who are not responsive to universal instruction receive supplementary support. Despite most students having co-occurring academic and behavior challenges, their needs are often addressed through separate academic or behavior interventions. This approach may not only be costly for schools, but it also fails to acknowledge the well-documented link between behavior and academic performance. The purpose of this study was to evaluate Academic and Behavior Combined Support (ABC Support), a newly developed supplemental intervention that merges a combined focus on reading fluency and engagement. Six teachers implemented the intervention for 6-8 weeks with Grade 2 students. Students' oral fluency on standard and training reading passages and occurrence of engagement and disruptive behaviors during classroom reading instruction were measured repeatedly across baseline and intervention phases in a multiple-baseline design. Visual and statistical analyses revealed significant improvement from baseline to intervention for both reading and behavior outcomes. Post-intervention surveys and interviews revealed a high level of acceptability among teachers and students. Theoretical and empirical contributions as well as practice implications are addressed.