用对幼儿高概率请求的研究比较和对比质量框架

IF 1.1 4区医学 Q3 EDUCATION, SPECIAL

Infants & Young Children Pub Date : 2022-10-01 DOI:10.1097/IYC.0000000000000223

J. Hardy, R. McLeod, Chris A. Sweigart, T. Landrum

{"title":"用对幼儿高概率请求的研究比较和对比质量框架","authors":"J. Hardy, R. McLeod, Chris A. Sweigart, T. Landrum","doi":"10.1097/IYC.0000000000000223","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of this study was to compare and contrast frameworks for evaluating methodological rigor in single case research. Specifically, research on high-probability requests to increase compliance in young children was evaluated. Ten studies were identified and were coded using 4 frameworks. These frameworks were the Council for Exceptional Children Standards for Evidence-based Practices, What Works Clearinghouse, Risk of Bias Assessment for Single Subject Experimental Designs, and Single Case Analysis and Review Framework. Significant differences were found across frameworks, both in the rating of rigor and the study effects. Implications for determining high-quality research and effective practices are discussed.","PeriodicalId":47099,"journal":{"name":"Infants & Young Children","volume":"45 1","pages":"267 - 284"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing and Contrasting Quality Frameworks Using Research on High-Probability Requests With Young Children\",\"authors\":\"J. Hardy, R. McLeod, Chris A. Sweigart, T. Landrum\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/IYC.0000000000000223\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The purpose of this study was to compare and contrast frameworks for evaluating methodological rigor in single case research. Specifically, research on high-probability requests to increase compliance in young children was evaluated. Ten studies were identified and were coded using 4 frameworks. These frameworks were the Council for Exceptional Children Standards for Evidence-based Practices, What Works Clearinghouse, Risk of Bias Assessment for Single Subject Experimental Designs, and Single Case Analysis and Review Framework. Significant differences were found across frameworks, both in the rating of rigor and the study effects. Implications for determining high-quality research and effective practices are discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47099,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Infants & Young Children\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"267 - 284\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Infants & Young Children\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/IYC.0000000000000223\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SPECIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Infants & Young Children","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/IYC.0000000000000223","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究的目的是比较和对比评估单一案例研究方法严谨性的框架。具体地说，对提高幼儿依从性的高概率请求的研究进行了评估。确定了10项研究，并使用4个框架进行了编码。这些框架是基于证据的实践的特殊儿童标准委员会，有效的信息交换中心，单一受试者实验设计的偏见风险评估，以及单一案例分析和审查框架。不同框架之间存在显著差异，无论是在严谨性评级还是研究效果方面。讨论了确定高质量研究和有效实践的含义。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Comparing and Contrasting Quality Frameworks Using Research on High-Probability Requests With Young Children

The purpose of this study was to compare and contrast frameworks for evaluating methodological rigor in single case research. Specifically, research on high-probability requests to increase compliance in young children was evaluated. Ten studies were identified and were coded using 4 frameworks. These frameworks were the Council for Exceptional Children Standards for Evidence-based Practices, What Works Clearinghouse, Risk of Bias Assessment for Single Subject Experimental Designs, and Single Case Analysis and Review Framework. Significant differences were found across frameworks, both in the rating of rigor and the study effects. Implications for determining high-quality research and effective practices are discussed.

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

Infants & Young Children Multiple-

CiteScore

1.90

自引率

9.10%

发文量

期刊介绍： Infants & Young Children is an interdisciplinary journal focusing on vulnerable children from birth to five years of age and their families. Of special interest are articles involving innovative interventions, summaries of important research developments and their implications for practice, updates for high priority topic areas, balanced presentations of controversial issues, and articles that address issues involving policy, professional training, new conceptual models, and related matters. Although data are often presented primarily to illustrate points, some types of data-based articles may be appropriate.