(PS13-C61) Clinical Applications in the Schools: Single Case Design Publication Practices in School Psychology Journals

Sunday, November 19, 2023

9:00 AM – 10:00 AM PST

Location: Regency Ballroom, Level 7

Author(s)

KP

Katherine Palma, M.S.

Student
St. John’s University
Northport, New York
Destiny A. Eden, B.A.

Graduate Student
St. John's University
Browns Mills, New Jersey
MT

Mark Terjesen, Ph.D.

Professor
St. John's University
Glen Cove, New York

Co-Author(s)

AF

Ariella Fromowitz, B.A.

Graduate Student
St. John’s University
Forest Hills, New York

The gap between clinical research and clinical practice is frustrating for both researchers and practitioners of clinical and school psychology. One common reason for the existence of this gap is the inadequacy of traditional research methodologies. For instance, very few articles in school psychology journals evaluate the effectiveness of interventions in schools (Bliss, et al., 2008; Villarreal, et al., , 2013). Single-case design (SCD) interventions, which are often seen in schools, do not appear nearly as much as a research design. SCD may restrict the bias and inaccuracy which stem from clinical judgment alone. In outcome research, it is best practices to report treatment integrity data (Martens & McIntyre, 2009). Not reporting treatment integrity may lead to false conclusions that an intervention was delivered exactly as designed. Reporting treatment integrity leads to greater confidence in research and practice (Perepletchikova, Hilt, Chereji, & Kazdin, 2009; Perepletchikova & Kazdin, 2005). Related to treatment fidelity, the magnitude of the intervention outcome would also be important to report. According to the American Psychological Association (APA)’s guidelines, effect sizes should also always be reported (2001). Effect sizes measure the impact of treatments, and can therefore guide clinicians to choose effective interventions (Cohen, 1994; Schmidt & Hunter, 2002). The current study describes the extent to which school psychology journals are publishing SCD design studies and that researchers are following best practice guidelines as it relates to report of treatment integrity and effect sizes. Preliminary analyses show that 58% of articles reported treatment integrity and 34% reported effect sizes. For the most part, reporting of treatment integrity has remained stable over time, however, there is a small but significant trend of effect size reporting increasing with year. Single-case studies report treatment integrity more often than group-based studies, and group-based studies report effect sizes more often than single-case studies. This may be because single-case researchers adhere to a higher standard of treatment integrity because of concern as to the limited generalizability of their results, yet do not know how to report effect sizes. Finally, there are differences in effect size reporting based on intervention type. This research highlights the importance and utility of reporting treatment integrity and effect size as well as summarizes differences across journals in terms of publishing of single-case design studies.