Evaluating implementation supports delivered within problem-solving consultation

Typicality of Level Change (TLC) as an Additional Effect Measure to NAP and Tau-U in Single Case Research

Single case research is a viable way to obtain evidence for social and psychological interventions on an individual level. Across single case research studies various analysis strategies are employed, varying from visual analysis to the calculation of effect sizes. To calculate effect sizes in studies with few measurements per time period (<40 data points with a minimum of five data points in each phase), non-parametric indices such as Nonoverlap of All Pairs (NAP) and Tau-U are recommended. However, both indices have restrictions. This article discusses the restrictions of NAP and Tau-U and presents the description, calculation, and benefits of an additional effect size, called the Typicality of Level Change (TLC) index. In comparison to NAP and Tau-U, the TLC index is more aligned to visual analysis, not restricted by a ceiling effect, and does not overcompensate for problematic trends in data. The TLC index is also sensitive to the typicality of an effect. TLC is an important addition to ease the restrictions of current nonoverlap methods when comparing effect sizes between cases and studies.

How to Evaluate a Tailor-made Social Work Intervention? Some Practice-Based Solutions with Single-Case Designs

PURPOSE

With the increased attention to the principles of evidence-based practice (EBP), social workers are challenged to adapt their daily interventions accordingly when treating clients. They usually work with individual clients, all with their own specificities. Single-Case Experimental Designs (SCEDs) can be used to inform a social worker about the effectiveness of an intervention at the individual client level. In everyday social work practice, however, it is difficult to meet methodological requirements of SCEDs to find causal explanations. A concern is that repeated measurements prior to an intervention are required in most situations. This study aims to provide researchers with alternatives to repeated measurement when using the logic of SCED to apply EBP in their everyday practice.

METHODS

In this study, we reviewed published single-case designs between January 1 and December 31, 2019, on types of SCEDs in the social domain, and how is dealt with baseline conditions.

RESULTS

SCEDs and quasi-experimental alternatives are hardly published in situations when baseline data are not available. Four underused quasi-experimental strategies that can be employed when repeated measurement during baseline is not possible are as follows: retrospective baselines, theoretical inference, multiraters, and triangulation with qualitative data.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The suggestions to work with single-case designs with quasi-experimental elements are meant to enable social workers to evaluate their interventions in a way that enhances mere narrative evaluations of the experiences of an intervention.

Single-case intervention research design standards: Additional proposed upgrades and future directions

Single-case intervention research design standards have evolved considerably over the past decade. These standards serve the dual role of assisting in single-case design (SCD) intervention research methodology and as guidelines for literature syntheses within a particular research domain. In a recent article (Kratochwill et al., 2021), we argued for a need to clarify key features of these standards. In this article we offer additional recommendations for SCD research and synthesis standards that have been either underdeveloped or missing in the conduct of research and in literature syntheses. Our recommendations are organized into three categories: expanding design standards, expanding evidence standards, and expanding the applications and consistency of SCDs. The recommendations we advance are for consideration for future standards, research design training, and they are especially important to guide the reporting of SCD intervention investigations as they enter the literature-synthesis phase of evidence-based practice initiatives.

Examining and Enhancing the Methodological Quality of Nonconcurrent Multiple-Baseline Designs

In this article we respond to the recent recommendation of Slocum et al. (2022), who provided conceptual and methodological recommendations for reconsidering the credibility and validity of the nonconcurrent multiple-baseline design. We build on these recommendations and offer replication and randomization upgrades that should further improve the status of the nonconcurrent version of the design in standards and single-case design research. Although we suggest that the nonconcurrent version should be an acceptable methodological option for single-case design researchers, the traditional concurrent multiple-baseline design should generally be the design of choice.

Using the Performance Diagnostic Checklist to evaluate and promote paraeducators' treatment fidelity

Paraeducators, who increasingly serve as implementers for students in special education, can struggle with intervention fidelity. Special educators, often responsible for providing paraeducators with support, receive limited supervision training. From organizational behavior management, the Performance Diagnostic Checklist-Human Services (PDC-HS) is a checklist to detect reasons for poor workplace performance and identify aligned support. Utilizing a multiple baseline design, this study evaluated the impact of PDC-HS indicated implementation support on the intervention fidelity of five paraeducators implementing six behavior intervention plans for students receiving special education services. The PDC-HS indicated that all paraeducators would benefit from behavior skills training and visuals of the plans, in addition to other specific supports for individual paraeducators (e.g., prompts, feedback). These implementation supports were effective in improving intervention fidelity for four paraeducators, whereas one paraeducator (across two students) did not respond to these supports. Changes in student outcomes (i.e., academic engagement, disruptive behavior) were inconsistent, suggesting that the behavior intervention plans may have needed to be revised. Usability data suggested that the PDC-HS and indicated supports were generally acceptable, but revisions may be warranted. The implications of this study for school-based implementation support research are discussed.