Literature DB >> 18576270

Rating the methodological quality of single-subject designs and n-of-1 trials: introducing the Single-Case Experimental Design (SCED) Scale.

Robyn L Tate1, Skye McDonald, Michael Perdices, Leanne Togher, Regina Schultz, Sharon Savage.   

Abstract

Rating scales that assess methodological quality of clinical trials provide a means to critically appraise the literature. Scales are currently available to rate randomised and non-randomised controlled trials, but there are none that assess single-subject designs. The Single-Case Experimental Design (SCED) Scale was developed for this purpose and evaluated for reliability. Six clinical researchers who were trained and experienced in rating methodological quality of clinical trials developed the scale and participated in reliability studies. The SCED Scale is an 11-item rating scale for single-subject designs, of which 10 items are used to assess methodological quality and use of statistical analysis. The scale was developed and refined over a 3-year period. Content validity was addressed by identifying items to reduce the main sources of bias in single-case methodology as stipulated by authorities in the field, which were empirically tested against 85 published reports. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using a random sample of 20/312 single-subject reports archived in the Psychological Database of Brain Impairment Treatment Efficacy (PsycBITE). Inter-rater reliability for the total score was excellent, both for individual raters (overall ICC = 0.84; 95% confidence interval 0.73-0.92) and for consensus ratings between pairs of raters (overall ICC = 0.88; 95% confidence interval 0.78-0.95). Item reliability was fair to excellent for consensus ratings between pairs of raters (range k = 0.48 to 1.00). The results were replicated with two independent novice raters who were trained in the use of the scale (ICC = 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.73-0.95). The SCED Scale thus provides a brief and valid evaluation of methodological quality of single-subject designs, with the total score demonstrating excellent inter-rater reliability using both individual and consensus ratings. Items from the scale can also be used as a checklist in the design, reporting and critical appraisal of single-subject designs, thereby assisting to improve standards of single-case methodology.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18576270     DOI: 10.1080/09602010802009201

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neuropsychol Rehabil        ISSN: 0960-2011            Impact factor:   2.868


  30 in total

1.  Limited acquisition and generalisation of rhotics with ultrasound visual feedback in childhood apraxia.

Authors:  Jonathan L Preston; Edwin Maas; Jessica Whittle; Megan C Leece; Patricia McCabe
Journal:  Clin Linguist Phon       Date:  2015-08-03       Impact factor: 1.346

Review 2.  Single-case experimental designs: a systematic review of published research and current standards.

Authors:  Justin D Smith
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2012-07-30

3.  Optimizing behavioral health interventions with single-case designs: from development to dissemination.

Authors:  Jesse Dallery; Bethany R Raiff
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 3.046

4.  Single-Case Design, Analysis, and Quality Assessment for Intervention Research.

Authors:  Michele A Lobo; Mariola Moeyaert; Andrea Baraldi Cunha; Iryna Babik
Journal:  J Neurol Phys Ther       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 3.649

Review 5.  The Potential of a Relational Training Intervention to Improve Older Adults' Cognition.

Authors:  Michelle E Kelly
Journal:  Behav Anal Pract       Date:  2020-07-01

Review 6.  Neuroimaging in aphasia treatment research: standards for establishing the effects of treatment.

Authors:  Swathi Kiran; Ana Ansaldo; Roelien Bastiaanse; Leora R Cherney; David Howard; Yasmeen Faroqi-Shah; Marcus Meinzer; Cynthia K Thompson
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2012-10-09       Impact factor: 6.556

7.  Memory Rehabilitation in Patients with Epilepsy: a Systematic Review.

Authors:  Samantha Joplin; Elizabeth Stewart; Michael Gascoigne; Suncica Lah
Journal:  Neuropsychol Rev       Date:  2018-02-15       Impact factor: 7.444

8.  Using ultrasound visual feedback to remediate velar fronting in preschool children: A pilot study.

Authors:  Qiwen Heng; Patricia McCabe; Jillian Clarke; Jonathan L Preston
Journal:  Clin Linguist Phon       Date:  2016-01-25       Impact factor: 1.346

9.  Lower spinal postural variability during laptop-work in subjects with cervicogenic headache compared to healthy controls.

Authors:  Sarah Mingels; Wim Dankaerts; Ludo van Etten; Liesbeth Bruckers; Marita Granitzer
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-03-04       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Single-case experimental designs to evaluate novel technology-based health interventions.

Authors:  Jesse Dallery; Rachel N Cassidy; Bethany R Raiff
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2013-02-08       Impact factor: 5.428

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.