ArticlePerspectives on behavior science2025
Questionable and Improved Research Practices in Single-Case Experimental Design: Initial Investigation and Findings.
Article in Perspectives on behavior science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A tutorial for software options to aid in assessing functional relations in single-case experimental designs.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Ten particularly frequent and consequential questionable research practices in quantitative research: Bias mechanisms, preventive strategies, and a simulation-based framework.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Researchers have identified questionable research practices that compromise replicability and validity of conclusions. However, this concept of questionable research practices has not been widely applied to single-case experimental designs (SCED). Moreover, to date researchers have focused little attention on improved research practices as alternatives to questionable practices. This article describes initial steps toward identifying questionable and improved research practices in SCED. Participants were 63 SCED researcher experts with varying backgrounds and expertise. They attended a 1-day virtual microconference with focus groups to solicit examples of questionable and improved research practices at different stages of the research process. A qualitative analysis of over 2,000 notes from the participants yielded shared perspectives, resulting in 64 pairs of questionable and improved research practices in SCED. Our results highlight the need for further evaluation and efforts to disseminate improved research practices as alternatives to questionable practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.