The What Works Clearinghouse Single-Case Design Pilot Standards

In this article, we respond to Wolery’s critique of the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) pilot Standards, which were developed by the current authors. We do so to provide additional information and clarify some points previously summarized in this journal. We also respond to several concerns raised by Maggin, Briesch, and Chafouleas after they applied the Standards to a single-case design synthesis published in this journal. The overall purpose of this response is to clarify what the Standards are designed to accomplish and to offer our views about future revisions.

[1]  Nirbhay N. Singh,et al.  Clinical and Benefit—Cost Outcomes of Teaching a Mindfulness-Based Procedure to Adult Offenders With Intellectual Disabilities , 2008, Behavior modification.

[2]  John Ferron,et al.  Tests for the Visual Analysis of Response-Guided Multiple-Baseline Data , 2006 .

[3]  Harris Cooper,et al.  The overview of reviews: unique challenges and opportunities when research syntheses are the principal elements of new integrative scholarship. , 2012, The American psychologist.

[4]  Robert H. Horner,et al.  Single-Case Designs Technical Documentation. , 2010 .

[5]  J. Levin,et al.  Enhancing the scientific credibility of single-case intervention research: randomization to the rescue. , 2010, Psychological methods.

[6]  Daniel M. Maggin,et al.  Introduction to the Special Series , 2013 .

[7]  Daniel M. Maggin,et al.  A systematic evaluation of token economies as a classroom management tool for students with challenging behavior. , 2011, Journal of school psychology.

[8]  D. Berliner,et al.  Small Class Size and Its Effects. , 2002 .

[9]  J. Levin,et al.  Crafting educational intervention research that's both credible and creditable , 1994 .

[10]  T. L. Eckert,et al.  The Effects of School-Based Interventions for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: A Meta-Analysis 1996–2010 , 2012 .

[11]  Nicholas D. Myers,et al.  A Review of Meta-Analyses in Education , 2012 .

[12]  T. Kratochwill,et al.  Empirically supported interventions in school psychology: The role of negative results in outcome research , 2000 .

[13]  Erin E. Barton,et al.  Effects of Weighted Vests on the Engagement of Children With Developmental Delays and Autism , 2010 .

[14]  W. Shadish,et al.  Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference , 2001 .

[15]  Larry V. Hedges,et al.  The Effects of Small Classes on Academic Achievement: The Results of the Tennessee Class Size Experiment , 2000 .

[16]  Justin D. Smith,et al.  Single-case experimental designs: a systematic review of published research and current standards. , 2012, Psychological methods.

[17]  Robert H. Horner,et al.  Single-Case Intervention Research Design Standards , 2013 .

[18]  William R. Shadish,et al.  The logic of generalization: Five principles common to experiments and ethnographies , 1995 .

[19]  Robert H. Horner,et al.  Functional analysis of problem behavior : from effective assessment to effective support , 1999 .

[20]  John M. Ferron,et al.  Single-case permutation and randomization statistical tests: Present status, promising new developments. , 2014 .

[21]  M. Wolery,et al.  The Use of Single-Subject Research to Identify Evidence-Based Practice in Special Education , 2005 .

[22]  Knowing Our Options for Setting the Record Straight, When Doing So Is Particularly Important , 2012, Psychological science in the public interest : a journal of the American Psychological Society.

[23]  Amy M. Briesch,et al.  An Application of the What Works Clearinghouse Standards for Evaluating Single-Subject Research , 2013 .

[24]  Oliver Bridget Wendt,et al.  Quality Appraisal of Single-Subject Experimental Designs: An Overview and Comparison of Different Appraisal Tools , 2012 .