Recommendations and guidance for enhancing systematic reviews of single-case experimental design research.

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Shawn P Gilroy, Matt Tincani, Christopher A Podlesnik
{"title":"Recommendations and guidance for enhancing systematic reviews of single-case experimental design research.","authors":"Shawn P Gilroy, Matt Tincani, Christopher A Podlesnik","doi":"10.1002/jaba.70064","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Systematic reviews based on single-case experimental designs (SCED) are increasingly common in the scientific literature. However, researchers reviewing SCED research may employ varying approaches and strategies, not all of which correspond with recognized standards of review quality, including those specific to SCED. Furthermore, unique features of SCED may necessitate the development of new standards specific to research synthesis. In this article, we provide an overview of the current status and functions of systematic reviews in SCED research. We offer recommendations and guidance to novice and advanced researchers to support consistency, replicability, and transparency of systematic reviews that include SCED research.</p>","PeriodicalId":14983,"journal":{"name":"Journal of applied behavior analysis","volume":"59 3","pages":"e70064"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of applied behavior analysis","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.70064","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Systematic reviews based on single-case experimental designs (SCED) are increasingly common in the scientific literature. However, researchers reviewing SCED research may employ varying approaches and strategies, not all of which correspond with recognized standards of review quality, including those specific to SCED. Furthermore, unique features of SCED may necessitate the development of new standards specific to research synthesis. In this article, we provide an overview of the current status and functions of systematic reviews in SCED research. We offer recommendations and guidance to novice and advanced researchers to support consistency, replicability, and transparency of systematic reviews that include SCED research.

加强单例实验设计研究系统评审的建议和指导。
基于单例实验设计(SCED)的系统综述在科学文献中越来越普遍。然而,研究人员可能会采用不同的方法和策略来审查经济与经济发展研究,并非所有的方法和策略都符合公认的审查质量标准,包括经济与经济发展的特定标准。此外,经济及经济发展局的独特特点,可能需要发展新的标准,具体到研究综合。本文就系统综述在经济与经济发展研究中的现状及作用作一综述。我们为新手和高级研究人员提供建议和指导,以支持包括经济及经济发展局研究在内的系统评价的一致性、可复制性和透明度。
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
Journal of applied behavior analysis
Journal of applied behavior analysis PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
20.70%
发文量
61
×
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
小红书