比较 What Works Clearinghouse 的单一案例研究标准:系统综述的应用

IF 2.1 4区 心理学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL
Catharine Lory, Emily Gregori
{"title":"比较 What Works Clearinghouse 的单一案例研究标准:系统综述的应用","authors":"Catharine Lory, Emily Gregori","doi":"10.1177/01987429241237712","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Systematic reviews of single-case experimental research (SCER) in special education often use the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Standards to assess the methodological rigor of studies within a given literature base. While significant changes were made between the two most recent versions of the WWC standards, no research to date has evaluated the extent to which these standards would result in different evaluation outcomes. To examine potential differences, we applied version 4.1 and 5.0 of the standards to a sample database of SCER addressing the challenging behavior of students with autism in general education settings. Systematic search, screening, and review procedures resulted in a total of 20 articles included for this review. Findings indicated a 27% change in overall ratings across the studies, with version 5.0 leading to lower ratings than version 4.1, due to factors such as a lack of assessment of procedural fidelity, therapeutic baseline trends, and insufficient data points in the first baseline phase. We discuss implications for research based on our findings and recommend future directions for SCER in the field of special education.","PeriodicalId":47249,"journal":{"name":"Behavioral Disorders","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the What Works Clearinghouse Standards for Single-Case Research: Applications for Systematic Reviews\",\"authors\":\"Catharine Lory, Emily Gregori\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01987429241237712\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Systematic reviews of single-case experimental research (SCER) in special education often use the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Standards to assess the methodological rigor of studies within a given literature base. While significant changes were made between the two most recent versions of the WWC standards, no research to date has evaluated the extent to which these standards would result in different evaluation outcomes. To examine potential differences, we applied version 4.1 and 5.0 of the standards to a sample database of SCER addressing the challenging behavior of students with autism in general education settings. Systematic search, screening, and review procedures resulted in a total of 20 articles included for this review. Findings indicated a 27% change in overall ratings across the studies, with version 5.0 leading to lower ratings than version 4.1, due to factors such as a lack of assessment of procedural fidelity, therapeutic baseline trends, and insufficient data points in the first baseline phase. We discuss implications for research based on our findings and recommend future directions for SCER in the field of special education.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47249,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Behavioral Disorders\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Behavioral Disorders\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/01987429241237712\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SPECIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavioral Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01987429241237712","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对特殊教育中的单例实验研究(SCER)进行系统性审查时,通常会使用 "有效信息交流中心(WWC)标准 "来评估特定文献库中研究方法的严谨性。虽然 WWC 标准的最新两个版本之间有重大变化,但迄今为止,还没有研究评估过这些标准在多大程度上会导致不同的评估结果。为了研究潜在的差异,我们将 4.1 版和 5.0 版标准应用于 SCER 样本数据库,以解决普通教育环境中自闭症学生的挑战行为问题。通过系统的搜索、筛选和审查程序,本次审查共纳入了 20 篇文章。研究结果表明,由于缺乏对程序忠实性的评估、治疗基线趋势以及第一基线阶段的数据点不足等因素,各项研究的总体评分出现了 27% 的变化,5.0 版本的评分低于 4.1 版本。我们根据研究结果讨论了研究的意义,并就 SCER 在特殊教育领域的未来发展方向提出了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of the What Works Clearinghouse Standards for Single-Case Research: Applications for Systematic Reviews
Systematic reviews of single-case experimental research (SCER) in special education often use the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Standards to assess the methodological rigor of studies within a given literature base. While significant changes were made between the two most recent versions of the WWC standards, no research to date has evaluated the extent to which these standards would result in different evaluation outcomes. To examine potential differences, we applied version 4.1 and 5.0 of the standards to a sample database of SCER addressing the challenging behavior of students with autism in general education settings. Systematic search, screening, and review procedures resulted in a total of 20 articles included for this review. Findings indicated a 27% change in overall ratings across the studies, with version 5.0 leading to lower ratings than version 4.1, due to factors such as a lack of assessment of procedural fidelity, therapeutic baseline trends, and insufficient data points in the first baseline phase. We discuss implications for research based on our findings and recommend future directions for SCER in the field of special education.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊介绍: Behavioral Disorders is sent to all members of the Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders (CCBD), a division of the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). All CCBD members must first be members of CEC.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信