A Systematic Review of Student Mediated Math Interventions for Students with Emotional or Behavior Disorders

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Corey Peltier ◽  
Kristi L. Morin ◽  
Kimberly Vannest ◽  
April Haas ◽  
Joshua Pulos ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Visual Analysis ◽  
Single Case ◽  
Single Case Design ◽  
Design Standards ◽  
Math Interventions ◽  
What Works ◽  
Weak Evidence ◽  
What Works Clearinghouse ◽  
Case Design ◽  
Academic Content

Students identified with emotional or behavioral disorders (EBD) display deficits across academic content areas, most notably in mathematics. We reviewed research on student-mediated math interventions for students with EBD. A total of 19 studies published between 1968 and 2019 met inclusion criteria, with 24 of 32 cases meeting the What Works Clearinghouse Pilot Single-Case Design Standards (Version 4.0) with or without reservations. Participants included 51 students identified with EBD, ages 8 to 16 years old. Results from visual analysis revealed 0 cases demonstrated strong evidence, 11 cases demonstrated moderate evidence, and 21 cases demonstrated weak evidence of intervention effects. The omnibus Tau-U was 74.35% (CI95 = 64.2% to 84.4%), representing data from 17 studies including 46 students. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Estimating the Impact of Design Standards on the Rigor of a Subset of Single-Case Research

2020 ◽  
pp. 104420732093404 ◽  
Author(s):  
Collin Shepley ◽  
Kathleen N. Zimmerman ◽  
Kevin M. Ayres
Keyword(s):  
Single Case ◽  
Single Case Design ◽  
Design Standards ◽  
Case Research ◽  
What Works ◽  
What Works Clearinghouse ◽  
Single Case Research ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Case Design

The implementation of research-based practices by teachers in public school classrooms is required under federal law as expressed in the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. To aid teachers in identifying such practices, researchers conduct systematic reviews of the educational literature. Although recent attention has been given to changes in the quality of these reviews, there has been minimal discussion about changes in the quality of the studies that comprise them. Specifically, to what extent have educational policies leading to the creation of experimental design standards resulted in a change in the rigor of educational research? Using a subset of the single-case literature commonly published in special education journals, we estimate the impact of What Works Clearinghouse single-case design standards on the trend in the rigor of single-case studies using a comparative interrupted time series framework. Within this subset of single-case studies, our estimation strategy did not detect a change in the trend of the rigor of single-case research following the establishment of What Works Clearinghouse single-case design standards. Implications are discussed for practitioners and researchers. Study data, syntax, and supplemental materials are available for public use at https://osf.io/xp7wv/.

Analysis of Differences Across Two Unaffiliated Systematic Reviews Using What Works Clearinghouse Single-Case Design Standards

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 143-160
Author(s):  
Collin Shepley ◽  
Justin D. Lane ◽  
Melinda J. Ault
Keyword(s):  
Special Education ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Single Case ◽  
Single Case Design ◽  
Design Standards ◽  
Topic Area ◽  
System Of Least Prompts ◽  
What Works ◽  
What Works Clearinghouse ◽  
Case Design

The system of least prompts response prompting procedure has a rich history in special education research and practice. Recently, two independent systematic reviews were conducted to determine if the system of least prompts met criteria to be classified as an evidence-based practice. Both reviews used single-case design standards developed by What Works Clearinghouse to evaluate the rigor and effects of studies; however, findings and implications varied significantly across reviews. We examined the data supporting each review and discuss how two reviews on the same topic area using the same standards for evaluating studies could arrive at different conclusions. Results indicate that varying search parameters, visual analysis protocols, and the flexibility allotted by the design standards may have contributed to differences. We discuss the importance of multiple literature reviews on the same topic area with regard to replication research in special education. In addition, we highlight the necessity of open data in such reviews. Finally, we recommend how practitioners and researchers should collectively interpret the differing findings and conclusions from the reviews examining the system of least prompts.

The What Works Clearinghouse Single-Case Design Pilot Standards

2014 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 145-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
John H. Hitchcock ◽  
Robert H. Horner ◽  
Thomas R. Kratochwill ◽  
Joel R. Levin ◽  
Samuel L. Odom ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Single Case ◽  
Single Case Design ◽  
What Works ◽  
What Works Clearinghouse ◽  
Case Design

What Works Clearinghouse Standards and Generalization of Single-Case Design Evidence

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 459-469 ◽  
Author(s):  
John H. Hitchcock ◽  
Thomas R. Kratochwill ◽  
Laura C. Chezan
Keyword(s):  
Single Case ◽  
Single Case Design ◽  
What Works ◽  
What Works Clearinghouse ◽  
Case Design

scholarly journals Commercial head-mounted display virtual reality for upper extremity rehabilitation in chronic stroke: a single-case design study

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mattias Erhardsson ◽  
Margit Alt Murphy ◽  
Katharina S. Sunnerhagen
Keyword(s):  
Virtual Reality ◽  
Upper Extremity ◽  
Visual Analysis ◽  
Single Case ◽  
Chronic Stroke ◽  
Single Case Design ◽  
Head Mounted Display ◽  
U Statistics ◽  
Upper Extremity Rehabilitation ◽  
Case Design

Abstract Background Rehabilitation is crucial for maximizing recovery after stroke. Rehabilitation activities that are fun and rewarding by themselves can be more effective than those who are not. Gamification with virtual reality (VR) exploits this principle. This single-case design study probes the potential for using commercial off-the-shelf, room-scale head-mounted virtual reality for upper extremity rehabilitation in individuals with chronic stroke, the insights of which can inform further research. Methods A heterogeneous volunteer sample of seven participants living with stroke were recruited through advertisement. A single-case design was employed with a 5-week baseline (A), followed by a 10-week intervention (B) and a 6-month follow-up. Upper extremity motor function was assessed with validated kinematic analysis of drinking task. Activity capacity was assessed with Action Research Arm Test, Box and Block Test and ABILHAND questionnaire. Assessments were done weekly and at follow-up. Playing games on a VR-system with head-mounted display (HTC Vive) was used as rehabilitation intervention. Approximately 300 games were screened and 6 tested. Visual analysis and Tau-U statistics were used to interpret the results. Results Visual analysis of trend, level shift and overlap as well as Tau-U statistics indicated improvement of Action Research Arm Test in six participants. Four of these had at least a moderate Tau-U score (0.50–0.92), in at least half of the assessed outcomes. These four participants trained a total of 361 to 935 min. Two out of four participants who were able to perform the drinking task, had the highest training dose (> 900 min) and showed also improvements in kinematics. The predominant game played was Beat Saber. No serious adverse effects related to the study were observed, one participant interrupted the intervention phase due to a fall at home. Conclusions This first study of combining commercial games, a commercial head-mounted VR, and commercial haptic hand controls, showed promising results for upper extremity rehabilitation in individuals with chronic stroke. By being affordable yet having high production values, as well as being an easily accessible off-the-shelf product, this variant of VR technology might facilitate widespread adaption. Insights garnered in this study can facilitate the execution of future studies. Trial registration The study was registered at researchweb.org (project number 262331, registered 2019-01-30, https://www.researchweb.org/is/vgr/project/262331) prior to participant enrolment.

scholarly journals Systematic Use of Visual Analysis for Assessing Outcomes in Single Case Design Studies

2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer R. Ledford ◽  
Justin D. Lane ◽  
Katherine E. Severini
Keyword(s):  
Visual Analysis ◽  
Single Case ◽  
Summative Evaluation ◽  
Single Case Design ◽  
Design Studies ◽  
Dichotomous Responses ◽  
Single Case Designs ◽  
Evaluation Of Data ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Case Design

Single case designs (SCDs) allow researchers to objectively evaluate the impact of an intervention by repeatedly measuring a dependent variable across baseline and intervention conditions. Rooted in baseline logic, SCDs evaluate change over time, with each participant serving as his or her own control during the course of a study. Formative and summative evaluation of data is critical to determining causal relations. Visual analysis involves evaluation of level, trend, variability, consistency, overlap, and immediacy of effects within (baseline and intervention) and between conditions (baseline to intervention). The purpose of this paper is to highlight the process for visually analysing data collected in the context of a SCD and to provide structures and procedures for evaluating the six data characteristics of interest. A checklist with dichotomous responses (i.e., yes/no) is presented to facilitate implementation and reporting of systematic visual analysis.

The Effect of Different Types of Feedback Statements on Educators’ Use of Naturalistic Instruction

2021 ◽  
pp. 016264342110193
Author(s):  
Christan Grygas Coogle ◽  
Clarissa Bunch Wade ◽  
Jennifer R. Ottley ◽  
Laura McCorkle
Keyword(s):  
Professional Development ◽  
Early Childhood ◽  
Visual Analysis ◽  
Special Educators ◽  
Single Case ◽  
Single Case Design ◽  
Preschool Classrooms ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Case Design

We used an adapted alternating treatment single-case design to compare the effect of affirmative feedback to affirmative plus suggestive feedback on educators’ use of naturalistic instruction. Three early childhood special educators and a focus child within their preschool classrooms participated. Visual analysis of our data suggest that affirmative plus suggestive feedback produced stronger effects compared to affirmative feedback. Based on these data, faculty and professional development providers should plan to provide their educators with both affirmative and suggestive feedback to strengthen educators’ practice. Implications for practice and research are included.

Teaching academic skills to students with significant intellectual disabilities: A systematic review of the single-case design literature

2019 ◽  
pp. 174462951989538 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen I Cannella-Malone ◽  
Scott A Dueker ◽  
Mary A Barczak ◽  
Matthew E Brock
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Visual Analysis ◽  
Single Case ◽  
Academic Skills ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Single Case Design ◽  
Significant Disabilities ◽  
Evidence Based Practices ◽  
Basic Reading Skills ◽  
Case Design

Students with significant intellectual and developmental disabilities deserve access to instruction on academic skills in addition to functional skills. Many teachers, however, report challenges with identifying appropriate evidence-based practices to teach academics to these students. The purpose of this systematic review was to summarize and analyze literature on academic instruction for students with significant disabilities. Two hundred twenty-two articles with 225 experiments utilizing a single-case design and published between 1976 and 2018 were included in the review. Visual analysis indicated that, in most cases, interventions enabled students to make progress on targeted academic skills. The majority of studies focused on basic reading skills and included participants with moderate disabilities. Most studies used a combination of three or four evidence-based practices, with modeling, prompting, visual supports, time delay, and reinforcement being the most frequently used combination across studies.

scholarly journals Assessing Intervention Effects in the Presence of Missing Scores

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 76
Author(s):  
Chao-Ying Joanne Peng ◽  
Li-Ting Chen
Keyword(s):  
Intervention Studies ◽  
Visual Analysis ◽  
Single Case ◽  
Internal Validity ◽  
Multiple Baseline ◽  
Single Case Design ◽  
Intervention Effect ◽  
Intervention Effects ◽  
Case Design ◽  
Support Evidence

Due to repeated observations of an outcome behavior in N-of-1 or single-case design (SCD) intervention studies, the occurrence of missing scores is inevitable in such studies. Approximately 21% of SCD articles published in five reputable journals between 2015 and 2019 exhibited evidence of missing scores. Missing rates varied by designs, with the highest rate (24%) found in multiple baseline/probe designs. Missing scores cause difficulties in data analysis. And inappropriate treatments of missing scores lead to consequences that threaten internal validity and weaken generalizability of intervention effects reported in SCD research. In this paper, we comprehensively review nine methods for treating missing SCD data: the available data method, six single imputations, and two model-based methods. The strengths, weaknesses, assumptions, and examples of these methods are summarized. The available data method and three single imputation methods are further demonstrated in assessing an intervention effect at the class and students’ levels. Assessment results are interpreted in terms of effect sizes, statistical significances, and visual analysis of data. Differences in results among the four methods are noted and discussed. The extensive review of problems caused by missing scores and possible treatments should empower researchers and practitioners to account for missing scores effectively and to support evidence-based interventions vigorously. The paper concludes with a discussion of contingencies for implementing the nine methods and practical strategies for managing missing scores in single-case intervention studies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document