View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Reporting Quality of Single-Case Research Published in Learning Disabilities Journals

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Reporting Quality of Single-Case Research Published in Learning Disabilities Journals
Language: English
Authors: Hott, Brittany L. (ORCID 0000-0001-5980-575X), Heiniger, Sarah, Justus, Jasmine, Randolph, Kathleen M. (ORCID 0000-0003-4241-8678), Al Shabibi, Amal, Beasley, Brooki, Frank, Kerry, Mitchell, Wendy, Tennell, Courtney, Wester, Fanee
Source: Learning Disabilities Research & Practice. Aug 2023 38(3):224-238.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 15
Publication Date: 2023
Sponsoring Agency: Department of Education (ED)
Contract Number: H325D190016
H325D210042
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Evaluative
Descriptors: Journal Articles, Periodicals, Research Reports, Learning Disabilities, Case Studies, Research Design, Quality Assurance, Standards, Intervention, Behavior
DOI: 10.1111/ldrp.12317
ISSN: 0938-8982
1540-5826
Abstract: Single-case research designs are useful for learning disability researchers interested in refining novel interventions (e.g., new mathematics intervention) before scaling, small n populations (e.g., students with comorbid learning and emotional and behavioral disabilities), and testing unique conditions (e.g., remote locales). Much attention has been devoted to developing research quality standards, which is essential for replication and implementation fidelity; however, little is known about the reporting quality of single-case design studies. To gain insight into the quality of learning disability single-case research design study reporting, we analyzed 72 articles published between 2010 and 2021 in six learning disability-focused journals using the Single-Case Reporting Guideline In BEhavioral interventions (SCRIBE) standards. Findings suggest that reporting quality has remained stagnant, and none of the studies reviewed met all of the reporting standards. Alignment with standards ranged from 33% to 77%. Implications for researchers and practitioners are discussed.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1388285
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFE9S_gvrYEkhAyzDzyer0-AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDNLtdQLcCGXuhv7HXgIBEICBmwOGpRXeN3PoYX_VLyeXYoQXqLhWVSLKHRoOG0HemHrXg34vy_tUiArRqGF9-LibKawD7wgUnb6B0n44CcwJeZf3_PONN7JbmHKQ_WzWhr8nPhoFHShvlKj32cSUqxVUoEgUTyZmXBfxs1h7IDW99MNFHxjhRtVPFPgV96TwnObByg3m4sl0FQ5vj8Yjx26YP1h65msefendKq-i
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0169914898;7mj01aug.23;2023Aug16.05:43;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0169914898-1">Reporting Quality of Single‐Case Research Published in Learning Disabilities Journals </title> <p>Single‐case research designs are useful for learning disability researchers interested in refining novel interventions (e.g., new mathematics intervention) before scaling, small n populations (e.g., students with comorbid learning and emotional and behavioral disabilities), and testing unique conditions (e.g., remote locales). Much attention has been devoted to developing research quality standards, which is essential for replication and implementation fidelity; however, little is known about the reporting quality of single‐case design studies. To gain insight into the quality of learning disability single‐case research design study reporting, we analyzed 72 articles published between 2010 and 2021 in six learning disability‐focused journals using the Single‐Case Reporting Guideline In BEhavioral interventions (SCRIBE) standards. Findings suggest that reporting quality has remained stagnant, and none of the studies reviewed met all of the reporting standards. Alignment with standards ranged from 33% to 77%. Implications for researchers and practitioners are discussed.</p> <p>Single‐case research design (SCRD) studies, also referred to as <emph>n</emph>‐of‐1 experimental design studies, randomized controlled trials of 1, and interrupted time series studies, involve systematically manipulating an independent variable. Such studies are useful for testing causal relations with strong internal validity because each participant acts as their own control. Learning disability researchers frequently use SCRD to identify, refine, and replicate interventions, or before scaling efforts to larger randomized controlled trials (Egel et al., 2018; Kennedy, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref1">45</reflink>]; Ledford & Gast, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref2">52</reflink>]; Zhang & Xin, [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref3">85</reflink>]). SCRD studies have the potential to provide insight into generalizability when designs incorporate replication, randomization, and multiple participants (Atkinson et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref4">4</reflink>]; Johnston et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref5">41</reflink>]; Maggin et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref6">57</reflink>]; Maggin et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref7">56</reflink>]).</p> <p>To support SCRD quality and rigor in learning disability research, there has been increased emphasis on the use of research quality indicators (Schalken & Rietbergn, [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref8">71</reflink>]; Smith, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref9">74</reflink>]; Talbott et al., [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref10">75</reflink>]). For example, several working groups have proposed quality research indicators for SCRD (e.g., Horner et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref11">35</reflink>]; What Works Clearinghouse, [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref12">83</reflink>]) that include standards for design, data collection, and data analysis to encourage common practices among researchers. Reviews of SCRD study quality suggest that study quality has improved over time, but many studies reviewed lacked alignment with established research quality standards. For example, in their review of interventions for students identified as Deaf or hard of hearing, Wendel et al. ([<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref13">82</reflink>]) found that only 25% (<emph>n</emph> = 8) of the studies reviewed met What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) SCRD study quality standards. Similarly, Losinski et al. ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref14">53</reflink>]) reported a lack of alignment with the [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref15">19</reflink>] study quality standards in their meta‐analysis of mathematics interventions for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Of the 17 studies included in the review, less than 24% (<emph>n</emph> = 4) met all of the CEC research design standards.</p> <p>Among reviews of studies including participants with learning disabilities (LD), 2 of 5 (40%) SCRD studies included in a synthesis of computer‐assisted reading instruction met WWC quality standards (Kim et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref16">46</reflink>]). Similarly, in their review of integrated reading and writing interventions, Kang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref17">43</reflink>]) noted that only 4 of 10 studies reviewed met WWC standards. More recently, Shin et al. ([<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref18">73</reflink>]) found that intervention studies meeting all criteria related to implementation fidelity had greater effects than studies that did not, while Park et al. ([<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref19">68</reflink>]) found that slightly over half of the 19 SCRD studies reviewed in their meta‐analysis of virtual manipulative interventions (<emph>n</emph> = 10) met CEC research design standards. It is difficult to account for the low number of published studies meeting research quality design standards. One possibility includes reporting omissions. Nonetheless, emphasis on both research quality and reporting is necessary and helpful when completing meta‐analyses and replication work (Atkinson et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref20">4</reflink>]; Hansen, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref21">32</reflink>]; Zimmerman et al., [<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref22">88</reflink>]).</p> <p>In more recent years, increased emphasis has been placed on reporting quality. Reporting guidelines provide SCRD researchers with a checklist of essential elements needed for manuscript development. Additionally, standards provide peer reviewers with specific criteria for evaluating work more efficiently and also support consistency across reviewers (Valentine et al., [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref23">78</reflink>]). Reporting standards assist researchers and practitioners by providing specific criteria for authors to ensure sufficient detail is provided (Appelbaum et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref24">3</reflink>]). Although several studies have focused on research quality using a variety of indicators, less attention has been devoted to SCRD research reporting; thus, it is unclear to what degree authors and reviewers acknowledge and adhere to reporting standards (Kratochwill et al. [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref25">49</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0169914898-2">Reporting Standards</hd> <p>Like research quality standards (e.g., CEC, WWC), options exist for SCRD reporting standards. However, these options are more limited than quality design standards and have not been tested to the same degree. For example, the CONSORT Extension <emph>n</emph>‐of‐1 Trials (CENT) Standards (Vohra et al., [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref26">80</reflink>]) and Journal Article Reporting Standards (JARS; American Psychological Association, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref27">2</reflink>]) have adapted quantitative design reporting standards that include SCRD studies. CENT and JARS standards have traditionally been used in medical research, but less attention to study reporting has been completed in the behavioral sciences.</p> <p>The Single‐Case Reporting Guideline In BEhavioral interventions (SCRIBE; Tate et al., [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref28">76</reflink>]) standards were developed to combat inadequate and incomplete reporting for SCRD studies in social science research. To develop the SCRIBE standards, a team of experts used a Delphi process to determine inclusion from two sets of items, one developed from a previously conducted review (Punja et al., [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref29">70</reflink>]) and another developed for the Single‐Case Experimental Design Scale (Tate et al., [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref30">77</reflink>]). This process involved an initial review by 53 field experts and a second review by 50 field experts, who rated the importance of potential items in the inclusion set. No items in the inclusion set received less than a 7/10 group median rating. Next, items were examined by 45 experts for additional ratings and anonymous comments. To further examine the items to be included in the standards set, 16 SCRD experts from around the world working in various relevant fields met in Sydney, Australia, in 2011 to review results and develop a final set of items for the SCRIBE checklist. They examined each item on content validity, item scope, relevance, and capacity to ensure accurate reporting of single‐case research results. Finally, three of the consensus meeting participants merged items and produced a final list of items for approval by the group, resulting in an endorsement of 26 items recommended for the final set of standards grouped into six categories: Title and Abstract, Introduction, Method, Results, Discussion, and Documentation.</p> <hd id="AN0169914898-3">Purpose of the Present Study</hd> <p>SCRD studies are increasingly used to evaluate reading (Berkeley et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref31">8</reflink>]), mathematics (Peltier et al., [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref32">69</reflink>]), and behavioral interventions (Contesse et al., 2021) for individuals who have learning disabilities. Accurately reporting results of studies supports intervention implementation and study replication. Reporting guidelines support special education, school psychology, counseling, reading, and health sciences professionals responsible for reporting outcomes of studies, replicating studies, reviewing studies, and implementing interventions (Hott & Flores, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref33">37</reflink>]; Hott et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref34">38</reflink>]).</p> <p>Analysis of the content of professional journals guides the field by identifying gaps and trends in the research base (MacFarland et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref35">55</reflink>]). Several content analyses of special education journals were conducted recently (e.g., Gage et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref36">29</reflink>]; Garwood et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref37">30</reflink>]; Hott et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref38">36</reflink>]; MacFarland et al., [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref39">55</reflink>]; Mastropieri et al., [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref40">59</reflink>]); however, none of them examined reporting quality.</p> <p>The purpose of the current study was to fill this gap in the literature by reviewing single‐case research studies published in prominent LD journals and examining alignment with reporting quality standards. The following research questions were addressed:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> To what extent is published SCRD learning disabilities research aligned with the SCRIBE standards?</item> <p></p> <item> What are the specific reporting strengths and weaknesses of the studies within the learning disabilities SCRD literature?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0169914898-4">METHOD</hd> <p>The research team met with a university research librarian with extensive experience and expertise in conducting systematic reviews and journal analyses to determine the best way to approach journal selection for the project. As suggested by the research librarian, the team reviewed Scimago Journal and Country Rank, ERIC, and Google Scholar <emph>education, special education</emph> rankings. The first two authors then independently reviewed the website for each journal listed to ascertain if the journal (a) was primarily dedicated to learning disabilities, (b) was a research journal, and (c) included single‐case design studies. The authors independently found that <emph>Learning Disability Quarterly</emph>, <emph>Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal</emph>, <emph>Journal of Learning Disabilities</emph>, <emph>Learning Disabilities Research and Practice</emph>, <emph>Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal</emph>, and <emph>British Journal of Learning Disabilities</emph> met journal inclusion criteria (100% interrater agreement).</p> <hd id="AN0169914898-5">Development of Reporting Standards and Coding Protocol</hd> <p>Authors 1 and 2 developed and piloted a coding manual and associated protocol using the 26 items included in the SCRIBE standards (Tate et al., [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref41">76</reflink>]). After the initial development, seven articles were coded by two doctoral‐level special education graduate students, and results were compared. When the graduate students did not identically score an item, additional prompts and explanations were added to questions in the manual for further clarity.</p> <p>Each SCRIBE item was broken into components and then scored as present or absent. For example, the Abstract item was to include a summary of the (a) research question; (b) population; (c) design; (d) methods, including interventions (i.e., independent variable/s), target behaviors, and any other outcomes (i.e., dependent variables); (e) results; and (f) conclusions. Additional notes were provided for clarification and alignment based on initial practice coding of articles during the manual development. For example, specific components have to be present in the abstract (i.e., not elsewhere in the article) in order to be coded as present, and research questions do not have to be phrased as questions but can be stated as purposes or aims. If all components were present, the item was scored as a 1 (meets) overall. If any component was missing, the item was scored as a 0 (does not meet) overall. Each item was included verbatim from Tate et al. ([<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref42">76</reflink>]) and scored.</p> <p>Each article in our review was examined for present or missing components of each of the 26 items and alignment with overall standards. See Table 1 for SCRIBE standards, components of each standard, and notes from our coding conventions.</p> <p>1 TABLE Coding Manual with Guidance for Single‐Case Reporting Guidelines in Behavioral Interventions (SCRIBE) Standards</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th align="left">SCRIBE #</th><th>Category</th><th>Coding Notes</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Title and abstract</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Title</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Identify research as single case in the title</td><td>The words "single case" must be present in the title to be coded as present.</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Abstract</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Summarize the:</td><td>Every component must be included in the abstract to be coded as present.</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Research question</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Population</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Design</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Intervention/s (independent variable/s)</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Target behavior/s</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Any other outcome/s (dependent variable/s)</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Results</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Conclusions</td><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Introduction</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Scientific background</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Describe the scientific background to identify:</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Issue/s under analysis</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Current scientific knowledge</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Gaps in that knowledge base</td><td /></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Aims</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>State the:</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Purpose/aims of the study</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Research question/s</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Hypotheses</td><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Method</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Design</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Identify the design (e.g., withdrawal/reversal, multiple baseline, alternating treatments, changing criterion, some combination thereof, or adaptive design) and describe the phases and phase sequence (whether determined a priori or data‐driven) and, if applicable, criteria for phase change</td><td /></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Procedural changes</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Describe any procedural changes that occurred during the course of the investigation after the start of the study</td><td>Procedural changes may include adding an additional teaching phase, doing a "booster" intervention session, adding an incentive phase, etc., if these were added to the method after the study began.</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Replication</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Describe any planned replication</td><td>Replication does NOT mean replicating another study. It DOES mean replicating across participants OR replication within the design (i.e., adding additional intervention phases).</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Randomization</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>State whether randomization was used and if so, describe the randomization method and the elements of the study that were randomized</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td /><td>Only the first portion is mandatory to code this section as a "1." The second two points are optional.</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Blinding</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>State whether blinding/masking was used, and if so, describe who was blinded/masked</td><td>Blinding, or masking, is a practice whereby study participants or stakeholders are prevented from knowing certain information that may somehow influence them.</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>Selection criteria</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>State the inclusion and exclusion criteria, if applicable, and the method of recruitment</td><td /></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>Participant characteristics</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>For each participant, describe the demographic characteristics, clinical (or other) features, relevant to the research question, such that anonymity is ensured</td><td /></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>Setting</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Describe characteristics of the setting and location where the study was conducted</td><td /></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>Ethics</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>State whether ethics approval was obtained and indicate if and how informed consent and/or assent were obtained</td><td /></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>Measures</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Operationally define all target behaviors and outcome measures; describe reliability and validity; state how they were selected and how and when they were measured</td><td /></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>Equipment</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Clearly describe any equipment and/or materials (e.g., technological aids, biofeedback, computer programs, intervention manuals or other material resources) used to measure target behavior/s and other outcome/s or deliver the interventions</td><td /></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>Intervention</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Describe the intervention and control condition in each phase, including how and when they were administered, with as much detail as possible to facilitate attempts at replication</td><td>Code present if you could replicate this study solely from what was described in the article.</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>Procedural fidelity</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Describe how procedural fidelity was evaluated in each phase</td><td /></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>Analyses</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Describe and justify all methods used to analyze data</td><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Results</td></tr><tr><td>19</td><td>Sequence completed</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>For each participant, report the sequence actually completed, including the number of trials for each session for each case</td><td>The sequence may be included with the graph rather than explained in the narrative.</td></tr><tr><td /><td>For participant/s who did not complete, state when they stopped and the reasons</td><td /></tr><tr><td>20</td><td>Outcomes</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>For each participant, report results, including raw data, for each target behavior and other outcome/s</td><td /></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>Adverse events</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>State whether or not any adverse events occurred for any participant and the phase in which they occurred</td><td>If no statement is made that adverse events did not occur, code a 0.</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Discussion</td></tr><tr><td>22</td><td>Interpretation</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Summarize findings and interpret the results in the context of current evidence</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td /><td>Should include an overall description of the findings and reference the introduction and the context presented in the section titled "scientific background."</td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td>Limitations</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Discuss limitations, addressing sources of potential bias and imprecision</td><td /></tr><tr><td>24</td><td>Applicability</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Discuss applicability and implications of the study findings</td><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Documentation</td></tr><tr><td>25</td><td>Protocol</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>If available, state where a study protocol can be accessed</td><td>If present, this is typically listed in the author's note section. If no mention of a protocol is referenced, code as 0.</td></tr><tr><td>26</td><td>Funding</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>Identify source/s of funding and other support; describe the role of funders</td><td>If present, this is typically listed in the author's note section. If no mention funding is referenced, code as 0.</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note</emph>. The descriptions under each category title include the criteria that were required to be included in full for each standard to be counted as present. Descriptions are verbatim from Tate et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref43">76</reflink>]) SCRIBE standards. The far‐right column includes notes made in the project manual to support accurate coding.</p> <hd id="AN0169914898-6">Coder Credentials</hd> <p>The faculty members who designed the study included three researchers with experience teaching SCRD courses and conducting research; two of them are Board Certified Behavior Analysts with doctoral distinction (BCBA‐D). The coding team included special education doctoral students, who were also certified special education teachers, school psychologists, and behavior analysts. Additionally, at the time of the study, each coder had completed at least one single‐case design study, advanced single‐case design coursework, and the What Works Clearinghouse Single‐Case Research Design Online Training ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref44">40</reflink>].).</p> <hd id="AN0169914898-7">Training</hd> <p>Before coding, a 3‐hour training session was led by the first author to review SCRIBE item components. Coders received the coding convention manual and protocol. First, the coding team coded an article together, discussed each item and its components, and then established a score. Next, dyads (i.e., teams of two coders) coded another single‐case article. Initial coding disagreements were resolved using the cyclical process to reach 100% interrater reliability (IRR), and further training was conducted on items of disagreement to clarify the coding manual. Finally, coders independently coded single‐case design articles from journals not included in this study until 100% IRR was obtained with the first author across two studies.</p> <hd id="AN0169914898-8">Procedures</hd> <p>Each article title and abstract published in the 6 learning disabilities journals from 2010 to 2021 was screened by two members of the research team. Articles that reported the results of single‐case design studies and included at least one participant with, or at risk for, learning disabilities were selected for this study. Studies that included at least one participant with LD and comorbid conditions were also included. Interrater reliability was calculated on screening procedures by dividing the number of agreements of studies included by the total number of studies, then multiplying by 100. The initial IRR was 100% for article inclusion.</p> <p>Each article was coded according to the item components that were present. If all components were present, the item was coded 1; if any of the components from an item was missing and not included in the manuscript, the item was coded 0. Researchers coding manuscripts referred to the coding conventions manual for further details and exemplars while coding and used Qualtrics to record codes.</p> <p>After completing coding, a comma‐separated values (CSV) file was created from Qualtrics. A third researcher reviewed the file to determine IRR. Initial IRR was 92.45%. Disagreements included Title, Replication, Procedural Change, and Adverse Events codes. The first author then provided additional training. Dyads met to resolve discrepancies until 100% IRR was established across all articles. The second author conducted an additional IRR review on 54% of the articles to ensure accuracy and reliability in coding. IRR was 100% with no discrepancies.</p> <hd id="AN0169914898-9">RESULTS</hd> <p>Of the 2,135 articles published between 2010 and 2021 in the 6 learning disabilities journals, 72 met the inclusionary criteria for further examination. Figure 1 provides a summary of search procedures and outcomes.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/7MJ/01aug23/ldrp12317-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="ldrp12317-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Diagram of search procedure. [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]" /> </p> <p></p> <p>SCRD articles were examined for inclusion of each item component. Variability was noted across and within journals when evaluated for alignment with SCRIBE standards. See Table 2 for a summary of article alignment with SCRIBE items by journal. LDQ had the highest alignment, followed by JLD and LDRP. The SCRIBE items were published in 2016, but no trend could be identified showing an increasing article alignment with items after that time.</p> <p>2 TABLE SCRIBE Standards Overall Alignment by Publication Year</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th /><th align="center">LDQ</th><th align="center">LDCJ</th><th align="center">JLD</th><th align="center">LDRP</th><th align="center">LDMJ</th><th align="center">BJLD</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>2010</td><td>‐</td><td>58%</td><td>‐</td><td>67%</td><td>38%</td><td>‐</td></tr><tr><td>2011</td><td>‐</td><td>‐</td><td>‐</td><td>54%</td><td>58%</td><td>45%</td></tr><tr><td>2012</td><td>‐</td><td>50%</td><td>‐</td><td>68%</td><td>47%</td><td>‐</td></tr><tr><td>2013</td><td>‐</td><td>58%</td><td>‐</td><td>63%</td><td>58%</td><td>35%</td></tr><tr><td>2014</td><td>73%</td><td>81%</td><td>‐</td><td>67%</td><td>‐</td><td>‐</td></tr><tr><td>2015</td><td>63%</td><td>69%</td><td>‐</td><td>71%</td><td>‐</td><td>‐</td></tr><tr><td>2016</td><td>69%</td><td>77%</td><td>62%</td><td>77%</td><td>‐</td><td>‐</td></tr><tr><td>2017</td><td>77%</td><td>46%</td><td>‐</td><td>‐</td><td>50%</td><td>35%</td></tr><tr><td>2018</td><td>69%</td><td>64%</td><td>‐</td><td>63%</td><td>60%</td><td>‐</td></tr><tr><td>2019</td><td>75%</td><td>60%</td><td>77%</td><td>77%</td><td>‐</td><td>‐</td></tr><tr><td>2020</td><td>‐</td><td>‐</td><td>‐</td><td>‐</td><td>‐</td><td>‐</td></tr><tr><td>2021</td><td>‐</td><td>‐</td><td>‐</td><td>‐</td><td>‐</td><td>‐</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>2 <emph>Note</emph>. The "‐" symbol indicates that no SCRD studies were published during the year.</item> <item>3 LDQ = <emph>Learning Disability Quarterly</emph>, LDCJ = <emph>Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal</emph>, JLD = <emph>Journal of Learning Disabilities</emph>, LDRP = <emph>Learning Disabilities Research and Practice</emph>, LDMJ = <emph>Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal</emph>, BJLD = <emph>British Journal of Learning Disabilities</emph>.</item> </ulist> <p>Each item was examined for alignment across all journals (see Table 3). Alignment ranged from 1% to 100% (<emph>M =</emph> 60%). Interpretation was the only item to reach 100% alignment with the SCRIBE standards. The next highest items were Limitations (<emph>M</emph> = 98%), Scientific Background (<emph>M</emph> = 94%), and Sequence Completed (<emph>M = 91%</emph>). Title was the lowest‐rated item (1%). Blinding was the next lowest (<emph>M</emph> = 4%), followed by Protocol (<emph>M</emph> = 15%), Adverse Events (<emph>M</emph> = 16%), and Ethics (<emph>M</emph> = 19%).</p> <p>3 TABLE SCRIBE Standards Alignment (Articles Published 2010−2021)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><th /><th align="center">LDQ</th><th align="center">LDCJ</th><th align="center">JLD</th><th align="center">LDRP</th><th align="center">LDMJ</th><th align="center">BJLD</th><th align="center"><italic>Mean</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Title</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Title</td><td>0%</td><td>7%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td>Abstract</td><td>76%</td><td>27%</td><td>33%</td><td>50%</td><td>75%</td><td>0%</td><td>44%</td></tr><tr><td>Introduction</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Scientific background</td><td>88%</td><td>100%</td><td>100%</td><td>100%</td><td>92%</td><td>86%</td><td>94%</td></tr><tr><td>Aims</td><td>88%</td><td>93%</td><td>100%</td><td>94%</td><td>83%</td><td>0%</td><td>77%</td></tr><tr><td>Method</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Design</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Design</td><td>100%</td><td>60%</td><td>100%</td><td>94%</td><td>75%</td><td>71%</td><td>83%</td></tr><tr><td>Procedural changes</td><td>18%</td><td>47%</td><td>33%</td><td>22%</td><td>25%</td><td>0%</td><td>24%</td></tr><tr><td>Replication</td><td>76%</td><td>60%</td><td>67%</td><td>78%</td><td>50%</td><td>71%</td><td>67%</td></tr><tr><td>Randomization</td><td>76%</td><td>53%</td><td>67%</td><td>56%</td><td>42%</td><td>0%</td><td>49%</td></tr><tr><td>Blinding</td><td>0%</td><td>27%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>4%</td></tr><tr><td>Participants or units</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Selection criteria</td><td>76%</td><td>53%</td><td>67%</td><td>78%</td><td>42%</td><td>29%</td><td>57%</td></tr><tr><td>Participant characteristics</td><td>71%</td><td>93%</td><td>100%</td><td>100%</td><td>100%</td><td>71%</td><td>89%</td></tr><tr><td>Context</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Setting</td><td>76%</td><td>80%</td><td>67%</td><td>94%</td><td>67%</td><td>14%</td><td>66%</td></tr><tr><td>Approvals</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Ethics</td><td>12%</td><td>20%</td><td>0%</td><td>28%</td><td>0%</td><td>57%</td><td>19%</td></tr><tr><td>Measures and materials</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Measures</td><td>59%</td><td>73%</td><td>100%</td><td>72%</td><td>67%</td><td>29%</td><td>67%</td></tr><tr><td>Equipment</td><td>100%</td><td>87%</td><td>33%</td><td>94%</td><td>92%</td><td>86%</td><td>82%</td></tr><tr><td>Interventions</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Intervention</td><td>94%</td><td>80%</td><td>67%</td><td>100%</td><td>75%</td><td>71%</td><td>81%</td></tr><tr><td>Procedural fidelity</td><td>94%</td><td>67%</td><td>100%</td><td>94%</td><td>75%</td><td>0%</td><td>72%</td></tr><tr><td>Analysis</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Analyses</td><td>82%</td><td>53%</td><td>100%</td><td>61%</td><td>8%</td><td>43%</td><td>58%</td></tr><tr><td>Results</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Sequence completed</td><td>94%</td><td>87%</td><td>100%</td><td>94%</td><td>83%</td><td>86%</td><td>91%</td></tr><tr><td>Outcomes and estimation</td><td>94%</td><td>73%</td><td>100%</td><td>89%</td><td>75%</td><td>86%</td><td>86%</td></tr><tr><td>Adverse events</td><td>12%</td><td>27%</td><td>0%</td><td>17%</td><td>42%</td><td>0%</td><td>16%</td></tr><tr><td>Discussion</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Interpretation</td><td>100%</td><td>100%</td><td>100%</td><td>100%</td><td>100%</td><td>100%</td><td>100%</td></tr><tr><td>Limitations</td><td>100%</td><td>87%</td><td>100%</td><td>100%</td><td>100%</td><td>100%</td><td>98%</td></tr><tr><td>Applicability</td><td>100%</td><td>87%</td><td>67%</td><td>100%</td><td>92%</td><td>57%</td><td>84%</td></tr><tr><td>Documentation</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Protocol</td><td>18%</td><td>13%</td><td>33%</td><td>17%</td><td>8%</td><td>0%</td><td>15%</td></tr><tr><td>Funding</td><td>94%</td><td>7%</td><td>100%</td><td>11%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>35%</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>4 <emph>Note</emph>. The bold font indicates the mean across journals for each item.</item> <item>5 LDQ = <emph>Learning Disability Quarterly</emph>, LDCJ = <emph>Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal</emph>, JLD = <emph>Journal of Learning Disabilities</emph>, LDRP = <emph>Learning Disabilities Research and Practice</emph>, LDMJ <emph>= Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal</emph>, BJLD = <emph>British Journal of Learning Disabilities</emph>.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0169914898-11">Title and Abstract Item</hd> <p>No articles (0%) met the criteria in the Title item. Thirty‐six articles (50%) met the criteria for the Abstract component. Examples of abstracts meeting the item include phrases like "A multiple baseline design was used to assess 6 third‐grade Latino ELLs at risk for MD" (Orosco, [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref45">67</reflink>], p. 45) to meet inclusion of design and population; and "This study compared the performance of middle school students with disabilities on computational‐based mathematics assessments when they had access to calculators and when they did not. Using a single‐case ABAB design, data were collected on the number of problems attempted, the number of problems (or parts of problems) correctly answered, and, when given access, the number of problems on which students used calculators" (Bone & Bouck, 2018, p. 35) to meet variables and outcome measures; "The results of the first study showed that the Tier 2 intervention improved mathematics performance for the majority of student participated in the study" (Dennis, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref46">20</reflink>], p. 29) to meet results; or "Overall, the intervention appeared to be effective to teach" (Hughes, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref47">39</reflink>], p. 41) to meet conclusion.</p> <hd id="AN0169914898-12">Introduction Item</hd> <p>Most articles (94%, <emph>n</emph> = 68) met the Scientific Background component of the Introduction item. Fewer met the criteria for the Aims component (82%, <emph>n</emph> = 59). An example of a clearly stated aim (i.e., including the purpose of the study) is "This study investigated the impact of PSP on the self‐determination levels of college students with LD/ADHD" (Farmer et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref48">26</reflink>], p. 145). An example of a statement of research questions that met item may be found in Ennis and Losinski ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref49">24</reflink>]), "We sought to address the following research questions: 1. To what extent is SRSD Fractions effective for teaching the addition and subtraction of fractions with unlike denominators to students with and at risk for mathematics disabilities? 2. To what extent are students at risk for behavioral challenges engaged during SRSD Fractions instruction as compared to students without behavioral challenges?" (p. 401).</p> <hd id="AN0169914898-13">Method Item</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0169914898-14">Design</hd> <p>Approximately 83% (<emph>n</emph> = 60) of articles met the Design component of the method item. About 25% (<emph>n</emph> = 18) met the Procedural Changes component, 68% (<emph>n</emph> = 49) met the Replication component, and 53% (<emph>n</emph> = 38) met the Randomization component. Approximately 6% (<emph>n</emph> = 4) of articles met the Blinding component. An example of a statement meeting Design component for identifying the single‐case design used is "A multiple baseline across participants design was employed" (McKevett et al., 2020, p. 5), or "A multiple probe across participants design (Cooper et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref50">18</reflink>]) was used to demonstrate how the self‐ advocacy intervention could be used to teach students to request their academic accommodations" (Walker & Test, [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref51">81</reflink>], p. 139). Hebert et al. ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref52">34</reflink>]) included a statement that met criteria for describing Phase Changes, "If a student's performance on the note‐taking outcome showed a change in level from baseline to posttest, and the baseline performance of the next participant was stable, the next participant began instruction" (p. 36). An example statement meeting component that describe a Procedural Change is found in Helman et al. ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref53">33</reflink>]), "Tullah's parents did not agree to audio‐ or videotaping; therefore, fidelity data were collected via direct observation" (p. 43).</p> <p>Examples of the Replication component are more difficult to quote directly, as they appear in multiple places in most articles through discussion of the type of design, replication across groups, or other procedures. Zhang et al. ([<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref54">86</reflink>]) offer an example statement that met the Randomization component, "We choose three students randomly from the whole‐number strategy cluster and three from the visual representation strategy cluster" (p. 522). An example statement that meets the Blinding component is, "A graduate student blind to the conditions of the study performed interscorer agreement checks on twenty percent of the stories as recommended by the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) standards for single‐case design" (Alves et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref55">1</reflink>], p. 983).</p> <hd id="AN0169914898-15">Participant(s) or Unit(s)</hd> <p>Participant(s) or Unit(s) includes Selection Criteria and Participant Characteristics. In Selection Criteria, 61% (<emph>n</emph> = 44) met the criteria and 89% (<emph>n</emph> = 64) met the criteria for Participant Characteristics. The description provided by Burke et al. ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref56">13</reflink>]) exemplifies the criteria for Participant(s) or Unit(s):</p> <p>All students (<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref57">27</reflink>) in the Language Arts classroom were given the opportunity to participate in the study. A recruitment letter was sent home to all students outlining the procedures, criteria, and benefits, for participating in the study. Students were determined appropriate for the study based on a phone call screening interview with the parents completed by the researchers. The screening criteria served to eliminate students with autism spectrum disorder, intellectual disabilities, hearing impairment and emotional or behavioral disorders. Students were also required to speak English as their first language. Based on the screening, students identified as above grade level, on grade level, at‐risk or struggling, or those identified as having learning or language disabilities were eligible to participate in the study. (p. 89)</p> <p>Participant Characteristics were described in such a way that criteria were met by Mancl et al. ([<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref58">58</reflink>]):</p> <p>Of the five participants, three were males and two were females. Four of the participants were Hispanic and one was White, non‐Hispanic. The participants were enrolled in the fourth and fifth grades and ranged in age from 10.1 to 11.6. All five participants were identified as having a learning disability in mathematics according to the Nevada State. (p. 154)</p> <hd id="AN0169914898-16">Context</hd> <p>Context includes Setting, which was met by 74% (<emph>n</emph> = 53) of articles. Milton et al. ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref59">63</reflink>]) included a statement that met the criteria for Context:</p> <p>The researchers conducted the study in an elementary school in a rural school district in the Southeastern United States serving students in kindergarten through sixth grade. The students received special education services in a resource setting which supported their performance in a general education mathematics class. During a 20‐min portion of a 50‐min class, the special education teacher provided instruction in groupings of one to three based on students' schedules. The teacher provided instruction to students in three different class periods attended by students in the same grade level. Tyler attended one. Julia attended another. Wyatt, Sam, and Antoni attended another. Instruction occurred at a kidney‐shaped table in which the teacher sat in the middle and the students sat in close proximity. The students' teacher was a certified special education teacher with a master's degree and 5 years of teaching experience. (p. 34)</p> <hd id="AN0169914898-17">Approvals</hd> <p>The criteria for Approvals were met by less than 20% of articles (<emph>n</emph> = 14). Within Approvals, Ethics includes documentation of study approval through an Institutional Review Board and consent procedures. Benedek‐Wood et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref60">6</reflink>]) included a statement about how Approvals were obtained that met criteria: "Before beginning the study, the researchers received the university's Internal Review Board (IRB) approval and received permission to conduct the study from the school district's school board and administration" (p. 73). Baker et al. ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref61">5</reflink>]) provided the following example that met the standards for informed consent:</p> <p>Consent to participate in the study was sought from all clients who were deemed (by service managers) to have the capacity to provide it. Four service users were able to provide informed consent, using an accessible information sheet. In the absence of a local legislative framework, the UK's Mental Capacity Act (2005) was followed as best practice in relation to conducting research with people who lack the capacity to consent. (p. 183)</p> <hd id="AN0169914898-18">Measures and Materials</hd> <p>Measures and Equipment are included in this component. About 65% (<emph>n</emph> = 47) of articles met the Measures criteria, whereas the Equipment criteria was met in 90% (<emph>n</emph> = 65) of studies. Liu and Xin ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref62">54</reflink>]) described target behaviors and outcome measures in this example, "The participants took a criterion test (and its alternate forms) and a transfer test. Each test was analyzed for two dependent variables: problem‐solving accuracy and quality of self‐explanation (primary dependent measure)" (p. 134). Equipment includes a description of materials used, which was described as follows as to meet standards by Duchaine et al. ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref63">22</reflink>]):</p> <p>A 40‐item comprehensive probe was given at the conclusion of the baseline phase in each class and again every tenth‐class session. The probes assessed student ability to retain material learned during the previous two weeks (Gardner et al., 1994) using three types of items. The items on each probe were chosen to represent items from each condition (i.e., HR and RC) by randomly selecting an equal number of statements from each review/quiz set and including 15 items that were an exact match to quiz statements, 15 items that were rewritten to be similar to quiz statements, and 10 items that were an exact match to review statements that were never used on quizzes. All items were written in the fill‐in‐the‐blank format to prevent differences based on question format. (p. 163)</p> <hd id="AN0169914898-19">Interventions</hd> <p>Interventions include Intervention and Procedural Fidelity. Approximately 86% (<emph>n</emph> = 62) of studies met Intervention criteria, and 76% (<emph>n</emph> = 55) met Procedural Fidelity criteria. To meet, interventions must be described in sufficient detail to be easily replicated by another researcher. This typically includes multi‐paragraph descriptions, which were found in Viel‐Ruma et al. ([<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref64">79</reflink>], p. 101) and Walker and Test ([<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref65">81</reflink>], p. 138−139).</p> <hd id="AN0169914898-20">Analysis</hd> <p>The Analysis component criteria was met by slightly more than half of the articles (56%, <emph>n</emph> = 40). The remaining articles reported little detail about analyses or did not include sufficient detail to meet the standard (44%, <emph>n</emph> = 32). One example of an article that provided sufficient detail, Ennis and Losinski ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref66">24</reflink>]), reported methods of data analysis for all measures, providing justification and criteria for each method:</p> <p>First, graphed data were visually analyzed consistent with convention (e.g., What Works Clearinghouse, Version 3.0). In addition, we calculated the mean, standard deviation, standard error (<emph>SE</emph>yx), and slopes for each phase for each student. To gauge an estimate of effects, we also calculated percentage of non‐overlapping data points (PND). A PND greater than 70% is considered an effective intervention, 50% to 69% is considered questionable, and less than 50% is considered ineffective. Given the concerns over using this measure in isolation, we also calculated the between‐case standard mean difference. (p. 405)</p> <hd id="AN0169914898-21">Results</hd> <p>The components within the Results item include Sequence Completed, Outcomes and Estimation, and Adverse Events. Most articles (90%, <emph>n</emph> = 65) met the criteria for Sequence Completed. Fewer met the criteria for Outcomes and Estimation (85%, <emph>n</emph> = 61). Even fewer articles met criteria in the Adverse Events component (19%, <emph>n</emph> = 14). Coleman et al. ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref67">15</reflink>]) provided an example of a statement that met criteria for Sequence Completed, "The order of conditions for Carrie's first session was CBA, while her second session order was ACB, and so on. Briana's first session order was ABC, while her second session proceeded in the order of CAB. This ensured that passages were not always read under the same conditions across participants" (p. 91). Outcomes and Estimation typically include data and outcome measures in graphic or table formats, but an example that describes baseline data gathered was included in Meyer and Bouck ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref68">61</reflink>]), "Cole's comprehension data during baseline ranged from 30.8% to 71.4% (μ = 49.9%; see Figure 1). Cole's baseline data were variable with an accelerating trend. On average, Cole stated main ideas with 57.7% accuracy, formulated generalizations with 20% accuracy, and recalled specific facts with 67.4% accuracy" (p. 42). Ness and Sohlberg ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref69">65</reflink>]) included a description of an adverse event that may have impacted the data collected "One data point late in the intervention phase was low (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref70">6</reflink>), but this should be interpreted with caution since he was involved in a fight before the class" (p. 45).</p> <hd id="AN0169914898-22">Discussion</hd> <p>The Discussion item includes the Interpretation, Limitations, and Applicability components. All of the articles (100%, <emph>N</emph> = 72) met the criteria in the Interpretation component. Evmenova et al. ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref71">25</reflink>]) provided an introductory statement within their discussion section that exemplifies the criteria for Interpretation, "Consistent with previous research, the results of this study demonstrated the relative effectiveness of word prediction on various aspects of the writing process for some students with writing difficulties as compared to word processing alone" (p. 180). About 97% (<emph>n =</emph> 70) of articles met the Limitations criteria, and 90% (<emph>n</emph> = 65) of articles met the Applicability component criteria.</p> <p>Freeman‐Green et al. ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref72">28</reflink>]) included an example that met the Limitations component criteria as follows, "While results of this study show great promise there are limitations that should be noted. First, there were a small number of participants and all were enrolled in a private school specifically designed for students with disabilities, thereby limiting the generalization of the findings to public school settings. Second, no long‐term maintenance data were collected" (p. 87). Applicability is exemplified in the statement made by Burns et al. ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref73">14</reflink>]):</p> <p>Progress monitoring data can be used to improve instruction and intervention, but there is no consensus on how to monitor progress for reading comprehension other than it is important to monitor use of strategies. The tool developed here could be used to monitor strategy use of students who struggle with reading comprehension and the data suggest that using the resulting data to provide feedback to the students could lead to increased growth. (p. 31)</p> <hd id="AN0169914898-23">Documentation</hd> <p>The final item included Protocol and Funding components. The Protocol component criteria was met by 14% (<emph>n</emph> = 10) of studies whereas the Funding component criteria was met by 31% (<emph>n</emph> = 22) of articles. Bertini et al. ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref74">9</reflink>], p. 29) included an appendix that met the criteria for Protocol, as did Dennis et al. ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref75">21</reflink>], pp. 109−110) and Helman et al. ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref76">33</reflink>], p. 51). Funding statements were included to reflect either no funding received, "The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article" (Helman et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref77">33</reflink>], p. 51), or funding received, "The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project is funded by the University Research Council at Clemson University" (Zhang et al., [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref78">87</reflink>], p. 529).</p> <hd id="AN0169914898-24">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>Systematic journal reviews are one method of exploring and synthesizing research topics such as research reporting standards. It is important to analyze the LD literature to determine strengths and areas of enhancement and, more important, to ensure quality reporting to support replication and establish evidence‐based practices and interventions for individuals with LD (Odom et al., [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref79">66</reflink>]). Further, information related to strengths and areas for enhancement may be shared with editors to support reviewer training and improve the quality of single‐case design reporting. LD definitions and eligibility criteria vary (see Benson et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref80">7</reflink>]; Miciak & Fletcher, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref81">62</reflink>]; Scanlon, [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref82">72</reflink>]; Willcutt et al., [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref83">84</reflink>]), and journals dedicated to individuals with LD tend to include comorbid disabilities, such as ADHD as well as those at risk for LD. Without clear reporting standards, it is difficult to understand what works for whom and under what conditions.</p> <p>Results of this journal review indicate both areas of reporting strength (e.g., the inclusion of scientific background, participant characteristics, limitations) and areas for reporting improvement (e.g., procedural changes, adverse event disclosures). One area of strength across studies was the inclusion of a description of participant characteristics. Rich participant descriptions are needed in support of replication, establishment of evidence‐based practices, intervention selection, and equitable intervention opportunities, as learning disabilities are nuanced and individual profiles are unique. Therefore, it is promising to see descriptions included across journals.</p> <p>Despite the aforementioned strengths, the research team did not identify a single article that fully aligned with the SCRIBE standards. The highest degree of alignment was 81% articles (Benedek‐Wood et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref84">6</reflink>]; Jozwik & Douglas, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref85">42</reflink>]). The next closest alignment (77%) was found in 10 articles (Dennis et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref86">20</reflink>]; Ennis & Losinski, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref87">24</reflink>]; Fishley et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref88">27</reflink>]; Grünke et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref89">31</reflink>]; Kong & Orosco, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref90">47</reflink>]; Kong & Swanson, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref91">48</reflink>]; Mancl et al., [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref92">58</reflink>]; McKevett et al., [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref93">60</reflink>]; Ness & Sohlberg, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref94">65</reflink>]).</p> <p>SCRIBE standards present each checklist item within a section of the manuscript where it is supposed to be located. Inclusion of information varies widely between sections of an article depending on journal, reviewers, publisher, and author. Further, some articles included headings that tied directly to the SCRIBE checklist headings, while others had few headings or labels, and the checklist content was embedded in text.</p> <p>Often, a standard was not met because one or more of the criteria was missing. For example, the Measures and Materials item includes a measures component that requires authors to "operationally define all target behaviors and outcome measures, describe reliability and validity, state how they were selected, and how and when they were measured" (Tate et al., [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref95">76</reflink>], p. e7). That is, seven criteria must be met to fully meet the standard (fully met on average 67% of the time). Another example is in the Analyses component within the Analysis item, where the author must "describe and justify all methods used to analyze data" (Tate et al., [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref96">76</reflink>], p. 8). Generally, if authors addressed this section, they described the method used but did not provide a justification for their selection.</p> <p>Findings from our review suggest that method and results sections of manuscripts would benefit from improvement. Specifically, several components of design sections lacked sufficient detail, including description of the setting. Authors rarely included information about the absence of adverse events, where the phrasing of the standards stated that the author should <emph>state whether or not any adverse events occurred</emph> (Tate et al., [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref97">76</reflink>]). Other examples include statements about ethics and contact information for the authors to request access to a protocol. Although most journals include contact information for the authors, most articles did not include a statement of <emph>where a study protocol may be accessed</emph>, which may limit further validation of instruments and replication of research. The second publication on SCRIBE standards (Tate et al., [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref98">76</reflink>]), which elaborated upon and explained the checklist, did not include exemplars for this checklist item.</p> <p>The results of this analysis indicate that research reporting quality can and should be enhanced. Failure to accurately report findings from research may lead to difficulties with selection of appropriate evidence‐based practices (i.e., essential reporting features are missing and make determining for whom under what conditions are applicable). Synthesizing research can also be problematic if study features are underreported. Accessible quality research and reporting standards have the potential to assist reviewers and editors with ensuring high‐quality peer review to promote equitable publication opportunities across fields (Gage et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref99">29</reflink>]). Despite the ideal of an unbiased and fair peer review process, publication bias—the tendency to publish studies with positive effects—still exists and has been acknowledged by researchers in the special education field (Cook & Therrien, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref100">17</reflink>]). Focusing on research quality and reporting standards rather than study outcomes can improve our understanding of what works and what does not, for whom, and under what conditions.</p> <p>Recent work (Hott et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref101">38</reflink>]; Kratochwill et al., [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref102">50</reflink>]) provides reviewers with a framework for reviewing SCRD research around quality standards to support editors and reviewers. Translating research to practice is imperative to enable teachers to implement evidence‐based practices in their classrooms, ultimately benefiting their students. Quality reporting standards (e.g., SCRIBE) help reduce the research‐to‐practice gap by ensuring consistency in reporting, which can lead to better classroom implementation, additional research replication opportunities, and larger‐scale studies. As research standards have evolved and research quality has improved over time (Moeller et al., [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref103">64</reflink>]), reporting of quality standards will likely evolve to meet needs best and continually improve the learning disabilities field.</p> <hd id="AN0169914898-25">Limitations and Future Research Directions</hd> <p>This study has several limitations. First, study reporting standards are relatively new in the behavioral sciences and only one set of quality standards was used (i.e., SCRIBE). Other reporting quality guidelines used in medical and social sciences could provide insight. Although SCRIBE standards are a recently developed resource, essential features of SCRD and reporting expectations have existed for over 40 years (Kazdin & Tuma, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref104">44</reflink>]). SCRIBE reporting standards are relevant, yet several of the articles reviewed were published before 2016, which means the standards did not exist at the time of the study for reference or comparison. No patterns in reporting quality, pre‐ or post‐publication of SCRIBE standards were observed, suggesting that additional dissemination and discussion may be beneficial.</p> <p>Second, because LD definitions vary and journals include comorbid and related disabilities, literature in this review includes individuals beyond those having a learning disability by one standard, such as Specific Learning Disability (SLD) as defined in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2005). Thus, some studies included participants with LD and other disabilities. For example, Bundock et al. (2021) included two students with LD, one student with autism, and one student with Other Health Impairment. Analyses including additional special education journals and disabilities would help to deepen our understanding of overall reporting quality in the special education field, including comparisons across design standards that continue to evolve and be updated. Finally, reviews correlating study quality and reporting may be beneficial.</p> <hd id="AN0169914898-26">CONCLUSION</hd> <p>Study reporting standards are important to ensure necessary details are provided to support clear communication of research findings. Such clarity allows for implementing interventions in applied settings, supports replication, and provides necessary research synthesis details. Careful attention must be paid to both the quality and quantity of single‐case design studies. The first step includes training novice researchers during graduate programs (Tate et al., [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref105">76</reflink>]). Providing mentoring in research conduct, reporting, and translation to publication for early career scholars has the potential to increase adherence to reporting standards and support publication of high‐quality research. Further, training and emphasis on reporting quality for peer reviewers about essential features that need to be included in SCRD manuscripts can potentially increase study reporting quality. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, attention to study reporting has the potential to improve practice as essential intervention components are clearly defined, supporting decisions about intervention selection and implementation.</p> <ref id="AN0169914898-27"> <title> REFERENCES </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref55" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Alves, K. D., Kennedy, M. J., Brown, T. S., & Solis, M. (2015). Story grammar instruction with third and fifth grade students with learning disabilities and other struggling readers. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 13 (1), 73 – 93.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref27" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> American Psychological Association. (2021). Journal article reporting standards: n‐of‐1 studies. Retrieved from https://apastyle.apa.org/jars/quant‐table‐5.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref24" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Appelbaum, M., Cooper, H., Kline, R. B., Mayo‐Wilson, E., Nezu, A. M., & Rao, S. M. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: The APA (American Psychological Association) Publications and Communications Board task force report. American Psychologist, 73 (1), 3 – 25. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000191</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Atkinson, K. M., Koenka, A. C., Sanchez, C. E., Moshontz, H., & Cooper, H. (2015). Reporting standards for literature searches and report inclusion criteria: Making research syntheses more transparent and easier to replicate. Research Synthesis Methods, 6 (1), 87 – 95. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1127</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref61" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Baker, P., Appleton, P., & Williams, R. (2017). An examination of the addition of video informed reflective practice to the Active Support Toolkit. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45 (3), 180 – 189. https://doi.org/10.1111/bld.12193</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref60" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Benedek‐Wood, E., Mason, L. H., Wood, P. H., Hoffman, K. E., & McGuire, A. (2014). An experimental examination of quick writing in the middle school science classroom. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 12 (1), 69 – 92. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1039825</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref80" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Benson, N. F., Maki, K. E., Floyd, R. G., Eckert, T. L., Kranzler, J. H., & Fefer, S. A. (2020). A national survey of school psychologists' practices in identifying specific learning disabilities. School Psychology, 35 (2), 146 – 154.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref31" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Berkeley, S., Hock, M., & Washburn, J. (2023). Single‐case experimental design for evaluating basic reading interventions for students with learning disabilities: An illustrative case. Learning Disability Quarterly, 46 (1), 6 – 16. https://doi.org/10.1177/07319487221087452</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref74" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bertini, T., Coffrey, D., & Swain, K. (2010). The effects of folding‐in of basic mathematics facts for students with disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16 (1), 23 – 30.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Billingsley, G. M., Thomas, C. N., & Webber, J. A. (2018). Effects of student choice of instructional method on the learning outcomes of students with comorbid learning and emotional/behavioral disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 41 (4), 213 – 226. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0731948718768512</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bone, E. K., & Bouck, E. C. (2018). Evaluating calculators as accommodations for secondary students with disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23 (1), 35 – 49. https://doi.org/10.18666/ldmj‐2018‐v23‐i1‐8437</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bundock, K., Hawken, L. S., Kiuhara, S. A., O'Keeffe, B. V., O'Neill, R. E., & Cummings, M. B. (2021). Teaching rate of change and problem solving to high school students with high incidence disabilities at Tier 3. Learning Disability Quarterly, 44 (1), 35 – 49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948719887341</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burke, L., Poll, G., & Fiene, J. (2017). Response to an expository writing strategy across middle school RtI tiers. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 15 (1), 85 – 101. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1141987</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burns, M. K., Maki, K. E., Karich, A. C., & Coolong‐Chaffin, M. (2017). Using performance feedback of reciprocal teaching strategies to increase reading comprehension strategy use with seventh grade students with comprehension difficulties. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 22 (1). https://doi.org/10.18666/ldmj‐2016‐v22‐i1‐7991</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coleman, M. B., Kildare, L., Bell, S., & Carter, A. (2014). Comparing the impact of rates of text‐to‐speech software on reading fluency and comprehension for adults with reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 20 (2), 87 – 97. https://doi.org/10.18666/LDMJ‐2014‐V20‐I2‐5278</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Contesse, V. A., Gage, N. A., & Lane, H. B. (2021). Practical use of single‐case research design to target improved behavioral outcomes for students with SLD. Learning Disability Quarterly, 46 (1), 32 – 45. https://doi.org/10.1177/07319487211041127</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cook, B. G., & Therrien, W. J. (2017). Null effects and publication bias in special education research. Behavioral Disorders, 42 (4), 149 – 158. https://doi.org/10.1177/0198742917709473</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2007). Applied behavior analysis. Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Council for Exceptional Children. (2014). Council for Exceptional Children standards for evidence‐based practices in special education. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.cec.sped.Org/‐/media/Files/Standards/Evidence/20based/20Practices/20and/20Practice/EBP/20FINAL">http://www.cec.sped.Org/‐/media/Files/Standards/Evidence/20based/20Practices/20and/20Practice/EBP/20FINAL</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dennis, M. S. (2015). Effects of tier 2 and tier 3 mathematics interventions for second graders with mathematics difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 30 (1), 29 – 42. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12051</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dennis, M. S., Sorrells, A. M., & Falcomata, T. S. (2016). Effects of two interventions on solving basic fact problems by second graders with mathematics learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 39 (2), 95 – 112. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0731948715595943</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duchaine, E., Jolivette, K., Fredrick, L., & Alberto, P. (2018). Increase engagement and achievement with response cards: Science and mathematics inclusion classes. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 16 (2), 157 – 176.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Egel, A. L., Barthold, C. H., Kouo, J. L., & Maajeeny, F. S. (2018). Single‐subject design and analysis. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), The reviewer's guide to quantitative methods in the social sciences (pp. 417 – 433). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ennis, R. P., & Losinski, M. (2019). SRSD fractions: Helping students at risk for disabilities add/subtract fractions with unlike denominators. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 52 (5), 39 – 412. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0022219419859509</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Evmenova, A. S., Graff, H. J., Jerome, M. K., & Behrmann, M. M. (2010). Word prediction programs with phonetic spelling support: Performance comparisons and impact on journal writing for students with writing difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25 (4), 170 – 182. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540‐5826.2010.00315.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Farmer, J. L., Allsopp, D. H., & Ferron, J. M. (2015). Impact of the personal strengths program on self‐determination levels of college students with LD and/or ADHD. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38 (3), 145 – 159. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0731948714526998</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fishley, K. M., Konrad, M., Hessler, T., & Keesey, S. (2012). Effects of GO FASTER on morpheme definition fluency for high school students with high‐incidence disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27 (3), 104 – 115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540‐5826.2012.00356.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Freeman‐Green, S. M., O'Brien, C., Wood, C. L., & Hitt, S. B. (2015). Effects of the SOLVE strategy on the mathematical problem solving skills of secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 30 (2), 76 – 90. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12054</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gage, N. A., Cook, B. G., & Reichow, B. (2017). Publication bias in special education meta analyses. Exceptional Children, 83 (4), 428 – 445. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917691016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garwood, J. D., Peltier, C., Sinclair, T., Eisel, H., McKenna, J. W., & Vannest, K. J. (2021). A quantitative synthesis of intervention research published in flagship EBD journals: 2010 to 2019. Behavioral Disorders, 47 (1), 14 – 27.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Grünke, M., Janning, A. M., & Sperling, M. (2016). The effects of a peer‐tutoring intervention on the text production of students with learning and speech problems: A case report. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 14 (2), 225 – 235.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hansen, W. B. (2011). Was Herodotus correct? Prevention Science, 12 (2), 118 – 120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121‐011‐0218‐5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Helman, A. L., Calhoon, M. B., & Kern, L. (2015). Improving science vocabulary of high school English language learners with reading disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38 (1), 40 – 52. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0731948714539769</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hebert, M., Bohaty, J., Nelson, J. R., Roehling, J., & Christensen, K. (2018). Taking notes on informational source text using text structures: An intervention for fourth grade students with learning difficulties. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23 (2), 34 – 55. https://doi.org/10.18666/ldmj‐2018‐v23‐i2‐9048</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single‐subject research to identify evidence‐based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71 (2), 165 – 179.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hott, B. L., Berkeley, S., Reid, C. C., & Raymond, L. (2018). Translating intervention research for students with mild disabilities to practice. The Journal of Special Education, 52, 66 – 77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466918759338</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hott, B. L., & Flores, M. M. (2023). Single‐case research design: Introduction to the special series. Learning Disability Quarterly, 46 (1), 1 – 6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hott, B. L., Flores, M. M., Morano, S., Randolph, K. M., & Peltier, C. (2023). Reviewing manuscripts reporting findings from single‐case research design studies. Learning Disability Quarterly. 46 (1), 46 – 58. https://doi.org/10.1177/07319487221089616</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hughes, E. M. (2019). Point of view video modeling to teach simplifying fractions to middle school students with mathematical learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 17 (1), 41 – 57. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1218030</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Institute of Education Sciences. (n.d.). WWC single case design standards version 5.0 online training.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnston, J. M., Pennypacker, H.S., & Green, G. (2020). Strategies and tactics of behavioral research and practice (4th ed.). Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jozwik, S. L., & Douglas, K. H. (2017). Effects of multicomponent academic vocabulary instruction for English learners with learning difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 40 (4), 237 – 250. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0731948717704967</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kang, E. Y., McKenna, J. W., Arden, S., & Ciullo, S. (2016). Integrated reading and writing interventions for students with learning disabilities: A review of the literature. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 31 (1), 22 – 33.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kazdin, A. E., & Tuma, A. H. (1982). Single‐case research designs. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Single‐case designs for educational research. Allyn and Bacon.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kim, M. K., McKenna, J. W., & Park, Y. (2017). The use of computer‐assisted instruction to improve the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities: An evaluation of the evidence base according to the what works clearinghouse standards. Remedial and Special Education, 38 (4), 233 – 245.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kong, J. E., & Orosco, M. J. (2016). Word‐problem‐solving strategy for minority students at risk for math difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 39 (3), 171 – 181. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0731948715607347</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kong, J. E., & Swanson, H. L. (2019). The effects of a paraphrasing intervention on word problem‐solving accuracy of English learners at risk of mathematic disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 42 (2), 92 – 104. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0731948718806659</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kratochwill, T. R., Hitchcock, J., Horner, R. H., Levin, J. R., Odom, S. L., Rindskopf, D. M., & Shadish, W. R. (2010). Single‐case designs technical documentation. What Works Clearinghouse. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/wwc/scd.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kratochwill, T. R., Horner, R. H., Levin, J. R., Machalicek, W., Ferron, J., & Johnson, A. (2021). Single‐case design standards: An update and proposed upgrades. Journal of School Psychology, 89, 91 – 105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2021.10.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ledford, J. R., & Gast, D. L. (Eds.). (2018). Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315150666</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ledford, J., Lane, J., & Severini, K. (2018). Systematic use of visual analysis for assessing outcomes in single‐case design studies. Brain Impairment, 19 (1), 4 – 17. https://doi.org/10.1017/BrImp.2017.16</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Losinski, M. L., Ennis, R. P., Sanders, S. A., & Nelson, J. A. (2019). A meta‐analysis examining the evidence‐base of mathematical interventions for students with emotional disturbances. The Journal of Special Education, 52 (4), 228 – 241.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu, J., & Xin, Y. P. (2017). The effect of eliciting repair of mathematics explanations of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 40 (3), 132 – 145. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0731948716657496</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacFarland, L., Williams, J., & Miciak, J. (2013). Ten years of research: A systematic review of three refereed LD journals. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28 (2), 60 – 69. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maggin, D. M., Barton, E., Reichow, B., Lane, K., & Shogren, K. A. (2021). Commentary on the What Works Clearinghouse Standards and Procedures Handbook (v. 4.1) for the Review of Single‐Case Research. Remedial and Special Education, 43 (6). https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325211051317</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maggin, D. M., Cook, B. G., & Cook, L. (2018). Using single‐case research designs to examine the effects of interventions in special education. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33 (4), 182 – 191. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12184 ∖</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mancl, D. B., Miller, S. P., & Kennedy, M. (2012). Using the concrete‐representational‐abstract sequence with integrated strategy instruction to teach subtraction with regrouping to students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27 (4), 152 – 166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540‐5826.2012.00363.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mastropieri, M. A., Berkeley, S., McDuffie, K. A., Graff, H., Marshak, L., Conners, N. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2009). What is published in the field of special education? An analysis of 11 prominent journals. Exceptional Children, 76 (1), 95 – 109.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McKevett, N. M., Kromminga, K. R., Ruedy, A., Roesslein, R., Running, K., & Codding, R. S. (2020). The effects of Motion Math: Bounce on students' fraction knowledge. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 35 (1), 25 – 35. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12211</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meyer, N. K., & Bouck, E. C. (2017). Read‐aloud accommodations, expository text, and adolescents with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 22 (1). https://doi.org/10.18666/ldmj‐2017‐v22‐i1‐7932</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miciak, J., & Fletcher, J. M. (2020). The critical role of instructional response for identifying dyslexia and other learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53 (5), 343 – 353.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Milton, J. H., Flores, M. M., Moore, A. J., Taylor, J.L.J., & Burton, M. E. (2019). Using the concrete‐representational‐abstract sequence to teach conceptual understanding of basic multiplication and division. Learning Disability Quarterly, 42 (1), 32 – 45. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0731948718790089</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moeller, J. D., Dattilo, J., & Rusch, F. (2015). Applying quality indicators to single‐case research designs used in special education: A systematic review. Psychology in the Schools, 52 (2), 139 – 153.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ness, B. M., & Sohlberg, M. M. (2013). Self‐regulated assignment attack strategy: Evaluating the effects of a classroom‐level intervention on student management of curricular activities in a resource context. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 11 (1), 35 – 52. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1014344</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Odom, S. L., Brantlinger, E., Gersten, R. Horner, R. H., Thompson, B., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Research in special education, scientific methods and evidence‐based practices. Exceptional Children, 71 (2), 137 – 48.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Orosco, M. J. (2014). Word problem strategy for Latino English language learners at risk for math disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37 (1), 45 – 53. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0731948713504206</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Park, J., Bryant, D. P., & Shin, M. (2022). Effects of interventions using virtual manipulatives for students with learning disabilities: A synthesis of single‐case research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 55 (4), 325 – 337.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peltier, C., Flores, M. M., & Strickland, T. K. (2023). Practical use of single‐case research designs when testing mathematics interventions for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 46 (1), 17 – 31.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Punja, S., Bukutu, C., Shamseer, L., Sampson, M., Hartling, L., Urichuk, L., & Vohra, S. (2014). Systematic review of the methods, statistical analysis, and meta‐analysis of N‐of‐1 trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 76, 47 – 56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.03.023</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schalken, N. & Rietbergen, C. (2017). The reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses in industrial and organizational psychology: A systematic review." Frontiers in Psychology 8, 1395.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scanlon, D. (2013). Specific learning disability and its newest definition: Which is comprehensive? And which is insufficient? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46 (1), 26 – 33.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shin, M., Bryant, D. P., Powell, S. R., Jung, P. G., Ok, M. W., & Hou, F. (2021). A meta‐analysis of single‐case research on word‐problem instruction for students with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 42 (6), 398 – 411.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith, J. D. (2012). Single‐case experimental designs: A systematic review of published research and current standards. Psychological Methods, 17 (4), 510 – 550. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029312</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Talbott, E., Maggin, D. M., Van Acker, E. Y., & Kumm, S. (2018). Quality indicators for reviews of research in special education. Exceptionality, 26 (4), 245 – 265.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tate, R. L., Perdices, M., Rosenkoetter, U., McDonald, S., Togher, L., Shadish, W., Horner, R., Kratochwill, T., Barlow, D. H., Kazdin, A., Sampson, M., Shamseer, L., & Vohra, S. (2016a). The Single‐Case Reporting Guideline in Behavioral Interventions (SCRIBE) 2016: Explanation and elaboration. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 4 (1), 10 – 31. https://doi.org/10.1037/arc0000027</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tate, R. L., Perdices, M., Rosenkoetter, U., Shadish, W., Vohra, S., Barlow, D. H., Horner, R., Kazdin, A., Kratochwill, T., McDonald, S., Sampson, M., Shamseer, L., Togher, L., Albin, R., Backman, C., Douglas, J., Evans, J. J., Gast, D., Manolov, R., ... Wilson, B. (2016b). The Single‐Case Reporting Guideline in BEhavioural Interventions (SCRIBE) 2016: Statement. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 27 (1), 1 – 15. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2016.1190533</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Valentine, J. C., Cooper, H., Patall, E. A., Tyson, D., & Robinson, J. C. (2010). A method for evaluating research syntheses: The quality, conclusions, and consensus of 12 syntheses of the effects of after‐school programs. Research Synthesis Methods, 1 (1), 20 – 38. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Viel‐Ruma, K., Houchins, D. E., Jolivette, K., Fredrick, L. D., & Gama, R. (2010). Direct instruction in written expression: The effects on English speakers and English language learners with disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25 (2), 97 – 108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540‐5826.2010.00307.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vohra, S., Shamseer, L., Sampson, M., Bukutu, C., Schmid, C. H., Tate, R., Nikles, J., Zucker, D. R., Kravitz, R., Guyatt, G., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2015). CONSORT extension for reporting N‐of‐1 trials (CENT) 2015 Statement. BMJ, 350, h1738.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walker, A. R., & Test, D. W. (2011). Using a self‐advocacy intervention on African American college students' ability to request academic accommodations. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26 (3), 134 – 144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540‐5826.2011.00333.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wendel, E., Cawthon, S. W., Ge, J. J., & Beretvas, S. N. (2015). Alignment of single‐case design (SCD) research with individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing with the What Works Clearinghouse standards for SCD research. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 20 (2), 103 – 114</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> What Works Clearinghouse. (2022). What Works Clearinghouse procedures and standards handbook, version 5.0. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE). Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Handbooks</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Willcutt, E. G., McGrath, L. M., Pennington, B. F., Keenan, J. M., DeFries, J. C., Olson, R. K., & Wadsworth, S. J. (2019). Understanding comorbidity between specific learning disabilities. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 165, 91 – 109.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, D., & Xin, Y. P. (2012). A follow‐up meta‐analysis for word‐problem‐solving interventions for students with mathematics difficulties. The Journal of Educational Research, 105 (5), 303 – 318. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2011.627397</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, D., Ding, Y., Stegall, J., & Mo, L. (2012). The effect of visual‐chunking‐representation accommodation on geometry testing for students with math disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27 (4), 167 – 177. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540‐5826.2012.00364.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, D., Stecker, P., Huckabee, S., & Miller, R. (2016). Strategic development for middle school students struggling with fractions: Assessment and intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49 (5), 515 – 531. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0022219414562281</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zimmerman, K. N., Ledford, J. R., Severini, K. E., Pustejovsky, J. E., Barton, E. E., & Lloyd, B. P. (2018). Single‐case synthesis tools: Comparing tools to evaluate SCD quality and rigor. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 79, 19 – 32.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Brittany L. Hott; Sarah Heiniger; Jasmine Justus; Kathleen M. Randolph; Amal Al Shabibi; Brooki Beasley; Kerry Frank; Wendy Mitchell; Courtney Tennell and Fanee Wester</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Brittany L. Hott, PhD, BCBA‐D, is an Associate Director of the Institute for Community and Society Transformation and Associate Professor of Special Education at the University of Oklahoma. Her interests include rural school‐based interventions and research methods for developing and validating instructional practices.</p> <p>Sarah Heiniger is a Board Certified Behavior Analyst and a Nationally Certified School Psychologist. She is completing her doctoral degree at the University of Oklahoma. She is interested in how single‐case designs are applied to both special education and behavior analytic research and how those results are reported to practitioners.</p> <p>Jasmine Justus is a doctoral student in the special education at the University of Oklahoma. Her interests include research on classroom management and behavioral intervention to support rural learners.</p> <p>Kathleen Randolph, EdD, BCBA‐D, is an Assistant Professor of Special Education at Texas State University. Her interests include coaching interventions to support general and special educators.</p> <p>Amal Al Shabibi is a doctoral student in Special Education at the University of Oklahoma. Prior to her doctoral studies, Ms. Al Shabibi served as a learning disabilities teacher for the Ministry of Education, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman.</p> <p>Brooki Beasley is a doctoral student at the University of Oklahoma. Her research interests include postsecondary transition services to support Indigenous students and families.</p> <p>Kerry Frank is a doctoral student at the University of Oklahoma. Her interests include technology, STEM, and dynamic practices within participatory‐based models of research.</p> <p>Wendy R. Mitchell is a doctoral student at the University of Oklahoma. Her research interests include incarcerated youth with disabilities, correctional educator preparation, correctional transition planning, and interagency collaboration.</p> <p>Courtney Tennell is a doctoral student at the University of Oklahoma. Her research interests include Indigenous special education, postsecondary transition, and transition resources for Indigenous students.</p> <p>Fanee Webster is a doctoral student at the University of Oklahoma. Her interests include (a) teacher preparation programs, (b) transition education, and (c) financial literacy skills for secondary students.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref104"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1388285
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Reporting Quality of Single-Case Research Published in Learning Disabilities Journals
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hott%2C+Brittany+L%2E%22">Hott, Brittany L.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5980-575X">0000-0001-5980-575X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Heiniger%2C+Sarah%22">Heiniger, Sarah</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Justus%2C+Jasmine%22">Justus, Jasmine</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Randolph%2C+Kathleen+M%2E%22">Randolph, Kathleen M.</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4241-8678">0000-0003-4241-8678</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Al+Shabibi%2C+Amal%22">Al Shabibi, Amal</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Beasley%2C+Brooki%22">Beasley, Brooki</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Frank%2C+Kerry%22">Frank, Kerry</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mitchell%2C+Wendy%22">Mitchell, Wendy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tennell%2C+Courtney%22">Tennell, Courtney</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wester%2C+Fanee%22">Wester, Fanee</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Learning+Disabilities+Research+%26+Practice%22"><i>Learning Disabilities Research & Practice</i></searchLink>. Aug 2023 38(3):224-238.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 15
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: Department of Education (ED)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: H325D190016<br />H325D210042
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Evaluative
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Journal+Articles%22">Journal Articles</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Periodicals%22">Periodicals</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Reports%22">Research Reports</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Disabilities%22">Learning Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Case+Studies%22">Case Studies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+Design%22">Research Design</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Quality+Assurance%22">Quality Assurance</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Standards%22">Standards</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intervention%22">Intervention</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Behavior%22">Behavior</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/ldrp.12317
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0938-8982<br />1540-5826
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Single-case research designs are useful for learning disability researchers interested in refining novel interventions (e.g., new mathematics intervention) before scaling, small n populations (e.g., students with comorbid learning and emotional and behavioral disabilities), and testing unique conditions (e.g., remote locales). Much attention has been devoted to developing research quality standards, which is essential for replication and implementation fidelity; however, little is known about the reporting quality of single-case design studies. To gain insight into the quality of learning disability single-case research design study reporting, we analyzed 72 articles published between 2010 and 2021 in six learning disability-focused journals using the Single-Case Reporting Guideline In BEhavioral interventions (SCRIBE) standards. Findings suggest that reporting quality has remained stagnant, and none of the studies reviewed met all of the reporting standards. Alignment with standards ranged from 33% to 77%. Implications for researchers and practitioners are discussed.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1388285
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1388285
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/ldrp.12317
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
        StartPage: 224
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Journal Articles
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Periodicals
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research Reports
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learning Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Case Studies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Research Design
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Quality Assurance
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Standards
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intervention
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Behavior
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Reporting Quality of Single-Case Research Published in Learning Disabilities Journals
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hott, Brittany L.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Heiniger, Sarah
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Justus, Jasmine
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Randolph, Kathleen M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Al Shabibi, Amal
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Beasley, Brooki
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Frank, Kerry
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mitchell, Wendy
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tennell, Courtney
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wester, Fanee
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 08
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0938-8982
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1540-5826
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 38
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Learning Disabilities Research & Practice
              Type: main
ResultId 1