Perceptions of Single-Case Experimental Design Researchers About Questionable and Improved Research Practices

IF 1.8 3区教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL

Remedial and Special Education Pub Date : 2025-10-28 DOI:10.1177/07419325251375992

Jason C. Travers, Art Dowdy, Matt Tincani, Tim Slocum

{"title":"Perceptions of Single-Case Experimental Design Researchers About Questionable and Improved Research Practices","authors":"Jason C. Travers, Art Dowdy, Matt Tincani, Tim Slocum","doi":"10.1177/07419325251375992","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Questionable research practices (QRPs) are methodological decisions motivated and reinforced by publication that can distort conclusions drawn from the scientific literature. This study surveyed 143 single-case experimental design (SCED) researchers from various backgrounds about their perceptions of QRPs and corresponding improved research practices (IRPs). Participants rated the problematic nature, prevalence, validity-enhancing potential, and feasibility of 64 QRP-IRP pairs. We found broad agreement that most QRPs undermine SCED research integrity, and IRPs could further enhance SCED validity. Exploratory analyses revealed a strong correlation between perceived QRP severity and likelihood of IRP adoption. However, variability existed in observed QRP prevalence and feasibility of IRP implementation. We discuss ways to increase awareness about QRPs and IRPs, potential journal editorial policy shifts, and SCED researcher development to strengthen transparency and rigor. Implications for advancing SCED methodology also are discussed with emphasis on fostering a culture of improved SCED transparency and rigor.","PeriodicalId":48042,"journal":{"name":"Remedial and Special Education","volume":"53 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Remedial and Special Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325251375992","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Questionable research practices (QRPs) are methodological decisions motivated and reinforced by publication that can distort conclusions drawn from the scientific literature. This study surveyed 143 single-case experimental design (SCED) researchers from various backgrounds about their perceptions of QRPs and corresponding improved research practices (IRPs). Participants rated the problematic nature, prevalence, validity-enhancing potential, and feasibility of 64 QRP-IRP pairs. We found broad agreement that most QRPs undermine SCED research integrity, and IRPs could further enhance SCED validity. Exploratory analyses revealed a strong correlation between perceived QRP severity and likelihood of IRP adoption. However, variability existed in observed QRP prevalence and feasibility of IRP implementation. We discuss ways to increase awareness about QRPs and IRPs, potential journal editorial policy shifts, and SCED researcher development to strengthen transparency and rigor. Implications for advancing SCED methodology also are discussed with emphasis on fostering a culture of improved SCED transparency and rigor.

查看原文本刊更多论文

单例实验设计研究人员对有问题和改进的研究实践的看法

有问题的研究实践（qrp）是由出版物所激发和强化的方法决策，可以扭曲从科学文献中得出的结论。本研究调查了143名来自不同背景的单案例实验设计（SCED）研究人员对qrp和相应的改进研究实践（IRPs）的看法。参与者对64对QRP-IRP的问题性质、流行程度、有效性增强潜力和可行性进行了评分。我们发现，大多数qrp破坏了经济与经济发展局研究的完整性，而irp可以进一步提高经济与经济发展局的有效性。探索性分析揭示了感知到的QRP严重程度和采用IRP的可能性之间的强相关性。然而，观察到的QRP患病率和IRP实施的可行性存在变异性。我们讨论了如何提高对qrp和irp的认识，潜在的期刊编辑政策转变，以及加强透明度和严谨性的经济与经济发展局研究员发展。会议亦讨论了推动经济及经济发展会议方法的意义，重点是培育提高经济及经济发展会议透明度和严密性的文化。

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

Remedial and Special Education EDUCATION, SPECIAL-

CiteScore

5.70

自引率

8.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： Remedial and Special Education (RASE) is devoted to the discussion of issues involving the education of persons for whom typical instruction is not effective. Emphasis is on the interpretation of research literature and recommendations for the practice of remedial and special education. Appropriate topics include, but are not limited to, definition, identification, assessment, characteristics, management, and instruction of underachieving and exceptional children, youth, and adults; related services; family involvement; service delivery systems; legislation; litigation; and professional standards and training.