Questionable and Improved Research Practices in Single-Case Experimental Design: Initial Investigation and Findings.

IF 3.8 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Perspectives on Behavior Science Pub Date : 2025-03-14 eCollection Date: 2025-06-01 DOI:10.1007/s40614-025-00441-9
Matt Tincani, Jason Travers, Art Dowdy, Timothy A Slocum, Ronnie Deitrich
{"title":"Questionable and Improved Research Practices in Single-Case Experimental Design: Initial Investigation and Findings.","authors":"Matt Tincani, Jason Travers, Art Dowdy, Timothy A Slocum, Ronnie Deitrich","doi":"10.1007/s40614-025-00441-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Researchers have identified questionable research practices that compromise replicability and validity of conclusions. However, this concept of questionable research practices has not been widely applied to single-case experimental designs (SCED). Moreover, to date researchers have focused little attention on improved research practices as alternatives to questionable practices. This article describes initial steps toward identifying questionable and improved research practices in SCED. Participants were 63 SCED researcher experts with varying backgrounds and expertise. They attended a 1-day virtual microconference with focus groups to solicit examples of questionable and improved research practices at different stages of the research process. A qualitative analysis of over 2,000 notes from the participants yielded shared perspectives, resulting in 64 pairs of questionable and improved research practices in SCED. Our results highlight the need for further evaluation and efforts to disseminate improved research practices as alternatives to questionable practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":44993,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Behavior Science","volume":"48 2","pages":"447-473"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12162424/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives on Behavior Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-025-00441-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Researchers have identified questionable research practices that compromise replicability and validity of conclusions. However, this concept of questionable research practices has not been widely applied to single-case experimental designs (SCED). Moreover, to date researchers have focused little attention on improved research practices as alternatives to questionable practices. This article describes initial steps toward identifying questionable and improved research practices in SCED. Participants were 63 SCED researcher experts with varying backgrounds and expertise. They attended a 1-day virtual microconference with focus groups to solicit examples of questionable and improved research practices at different stages of the research process. A qualitative analysis of over 2,000 notes from the participants yielded shared perspectives, resulting in 64 pairs of questionable and improved research practices in SCED. Our results highlight the need for further evaluation and efforts to disseminate improved research practices as alternatives to questionable practices.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

单例实验设计中有问题的和改进的研究实践:初步调查和发现。
研究人员已经确定了有问题的研究实践,损害了结论的可重复性和有效性。然而,这种可疑研究实践的概念尚未广泛应用于单例实验设计(SCED)。此外,迄今为止,研究人员很少关注改进的研究实践,以替代有问题的实践。本文介绍了初步步骤,以确定问题和改进的研究实践在经济与经济发展局。参加者是63位经济及经济发展局的研究专家,他们的背景和专业知识各不相同。他们参加了一个为期一天的虚拟微会议,与焦点小组一起征求在研究过程的不同阶段有问题的和改进的研究实践的例子。对2000多份与会者的笔记进行定性分析,得出了共同的观点,并对经济及经济发展局的研究实践提出了64对质疑和改进。我们的结果强调需要进一步评估和努力传播改进的研究实践,以替代有问题的实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Perspectives on Behavior Science
Perspectives on Behavior Science PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
10.00%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: Perspectives on Behavior Science is an official publication of the Association for Behavior Analysis International. It is published quarterly, and in addition to its articles on theoretical, experimental, and applied topics in behavior analysis, this journal also includes literature reviews, re-interpretations of published data, and articles on behaviorism as a philosophy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信