An Algorithm to Evaluate Methodological Rigor and Risk of Bias in Single-Case Studies.

IF 2 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Behavior Modification Pub Date : 2023-11-01 Epub Date: 2019-08-30 DOI:10.1177/0145445519863035
Michael Perdices, Robyn L Tate, Ulrike Rosenkoetter
{"title":"An Algorithm to Evaluate Methodological Rigor and Risk of Bias in Single-Case Studies.","authors":"Michael Perdices,&nbsp;Robyn L Tate,&nbsp;Ulrike Rosenkoetter","doi":"10.1177/0145445519863035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Critical appraisal scales play an important role in evaluating methodological rigor (MR) of between-groups and single-case designs (SCDs). For intervention research this forms an essential basis for ascertaining the strength of evidence. Yet, few such scales provide classifications that take into account the differential weighting of items contributing to internal validity. This study aimed to develop an algorithm derived from the Risk of Bias in N-of-1 Trials (RoBiNT) Scale to classify MR and risk of bias magnitude in SCDs. The algorithm was applied to 46 SCD experiments. Two experiments (4%) were classified as Very High MR, 14 (30%) as High, 5 (11%) as Moderate, 2 (4%) as Fair, 2 (4%) as Low, and 21 (46%) as Very Low. These proportions were comparable to the What Works Clearinghouse classifications: 13 (28%) met standards, 8 (17%) met standards with reservations, and 25 (54%) did not meet standards. There was strong association between the two classification systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":48037,"journal":{"name":"Behavior Modification","volume":"1 1","pages":"1482-1509"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0145445519863035","citationCount":"20","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Behavior Modification","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445519863035","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/8/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

Abstract

Critical appraisal scales play an important role in evaluating methodological rigor (MR) of between-groups and single-case designs (SCDs). For intervention research this forms an essential basis for ascertaining the strength of evidence. Yet, few such scales provide classifications that take into account the differential weighting of items contributing to internal validity. This study aimed to develop an algorithm derived from the Risk of Bias in N-of-1 Trials (RoBiNT) Scale to classify MR and risk of bias magnitude in SCDs. The algorithm was applied to 46 SCD experiments. Two experiments (4%) were classified as Very High MR, 14 (30%) as High, 5 (11%) as Moderate, 2 (4%) as Fair, 2 (4%) as Low, and 21 (46%) as Very Low. These proportions were comparable to the What Works Clearinghouse classifications: 13 (28%) met standards, 8 (17%) met standards with reservations, and 25 (54%) did not meet standards. There was strong association between the two classification systems.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
单例研究中评估方法严谨性和偏倚风险的算法。
临界评估量表在评估组间和单病例设计(SCD)的方法严谨性(MR)方面发挥着重要作用。对于干预研究来说,这是确定证据强度的重要基础。然而,很少有这样的量表提供考虑到对内部有效性有贡献的项目的不同权重的分类。本研究旨在开发一种源自1次试验中N次偏倚风险量表(RoBiNT)的算法,对SCD中的MR和偏倚程度风险进行分类。该算法已应用于46个SCD实验。两个实验(4%)被归类为甚高MR,14个(30%)被归类于高MR,5个(11%)被分类为中等MR,2个(4%)为一般MR,2(4%)归类于低MR,21个(46%)归类于甚低MR。这些比例与What Works Clearinghouse的分类相当:13个(28%)符合标准,8个(17%)符合保留标准,25个(54%)不符合标准。这两个分类系统之间有很强的联系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Behavior Modification
Behavior Modification PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
期刊介绍: For two decades, researchers and practitioners have turned to Behavior Modification for current scholarship on applied behavior modification. Starting in 1995, in addition to keeping you informed on assessment and modification techniques relevant to psychiatric, clinical, education, and rehabilitation settings, Behavior Modification revised and expanded its focus to include treatment manuals and program descriptions. With these features you can follow the process of clinical research and see how it can be applied to your own work. And, with Behavior Modification, successful clinical and administrative experts have an outlet for sharing their solutions in the field.
期刊最新文献
A Quantitative Systematic Literature Review of Combination Punishment Literature: Progress Over the Last Decade. Using Instructions and Acoustic Feedback to Improve Staff Delivery of Behavior-Specific Praise in a Clinical Setting. Progressive Functional Analysis and Function-Based Intervention Via Telehealth: A Replication and Extension. Caregiver-Implemented Interventions to Improve Daily Living Skills for Individuals With Developmental Disabilities: A Systematic Review. Editor's Farewell.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1