Single-case research design is a useful methodology for evaluating the presence of a functional relation between an intervention and the mathematical performance of students with a learning disability. However, a functional relation cannot be established with threats to internal validity of the design. External validity is impacted if researchers do not clearly describe their methods so that others may replicate them. Therefore, single-case researchers must maximize the internal and external validity of their investigations. We provide a commentary on investigations published in Learning Disability Quarterly that implemented a mathematics intervention for students with a mathematics learning disability. We will highlight specific features of single-case designs within the review and provide recommendations for the field.
BaerD. M.WolfM. M.RisleyT. R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1(1), 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1901%2Fjaba.1968.1-91
2.
BarlowD. H.HayesS. C. (1979). Alternating treatments design: One strategy for comparing the effects of two treatments in a single subject. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12(2), 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1979.12-199
3.
*BillingsleyG. M.ThomasC. N.WebberJ. 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, 44(2), 110–122. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0731948718768512
4.
*BrawandA.King-SearsM. E.EvmenovaA. S.ReganK. (2020). Proportional reasoning word problem performance for middle school students with high-incidence disabilities (HID). Learning Disability Quarterly, 43(3), 140–153. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0731948719837920
5.
BuskP. L.SerlinR. C. (1992). Meta -analysis for single-case research. In KratochwillT. R.LevinJ. R. (Eds.), Single-case research designs and analysis: New directions for psychology and education (pp. 187–212). Lawrence Erlbaum.
6.
CampbellD. T.StanleyJ. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Houghton Mifflin.
7.
ChristT. J. (2007). Experimental control and threats to internal validity of concurrent and nonconcurrent multiple baseline designs. Psychology in the Schools, 44(5), 451–459. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20237
8.
ClarkeB.ShinnM. R. (2004). A preliminary investigation into the identification and development of early mathematics curriculum-based measurement. School Psychology Review, 33(2), 234–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2004.12086245
9.
CookB.BuysseV.KlingnerJ.LandrumT.McWilliamR.TankersleyM.TestD. (2014). Council for exceptional children: Standards for evidence-based practices in special education. Teaching Exceptional Children, 46(6), 206–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059914531389
10.
CooperJ. O.HeronT. E.HewardW. L. (2020). Applied behavior analysis. Pearson.
11.
DartE. H.RadleyK. C. (2017). The impact of ordinate scaling on the visual analysis of single-case data. Journal of School Psychology, 63, 105–118.
12.
DartE. H.RadleyK. C. (2018). Toward a standard assembly of linear graphs. School Psychology Quarterly, 33(3), 350–355. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000269
13.
*DennisM. S.SorrellsA. M.FalcomataT. 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
14.
*DoablerC. T.ClarkeB.FienH.BakerS. K.KostyD. B.CaryM. S. (2015). The science behind curriculum development and evaluation: Taking a design science approach in the production of a tier 2 mathematics curriculum. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38(2), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0731948713520555
15.
HornerR. D.BaerD. M. (1978). Multiple-probe technique: A variation of the multiple baseline. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11(1), 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1978.11-189
16.
HornerR. H.CarrE. G.HalleJ.McGeeG.OdomS.WoleryM. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100203
17.
HospM. K.HospJ. L.HowellK. W. (2016). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum-based measurement (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
18.
KazdinA. E. (2013). Behavior modification in applied settings (7th ed.). Waveland Press.
19.
*KongJ. E.OroscoM. 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
20.
*KongJ. E.SwansonH. 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
21.
KratochwillT. R.LevinJ. R. (2014). Enhancing the scientific credibility of single-case intervention research: Randomization to the rescue. In KratochwillT. R.LevinJ. R. (Eds.), School psychology series. Single-case intervention research: Methodological and statistical advances (pp. 53–89). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14376-003
22.
KubinaR. M.KostewiczD. E.BrennanK. M.KingS. A. (2017). A critical review of line graphs in behavior analytic journals. Educational Psychology Review, 29(3), 583–598.
23.
LedfordJ. R.BartonE. E.SeveriniK. E. (2019). Visual display of graphic data in single case design studies: Systematic review and expert preference analysis. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 54(4), 315–327. http://daddcec.org/Publications/ETADDJournal.aspx
24.
LinX.PengP.LuoH. (2019). The deficit profile of elementary students with computational difficulties versus word problem-solving difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, 44(2), 110–122. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0731948719865499
25.
*LiuJ.XinY. 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
26.
MagginD. M.BrieschA. M.ChafouleasS. M.FergusonT. D.ClarkC. (2014). A comparison of rubrics for identifying empirically supported practices with single-case research. Journal of Behavioral Education, 23(2), 287–311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-013-9187-z
*MiltonJ. H.FloresM. M.MooreA. J.TaylorJ. L. J.BurtonM. 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
*OkM. W.BryantD. P. (2016). Effects of a strategic intervention with iPad practice on the multiplication fact performance of fifth-grade students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 39(3), 146–158. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0731948715598285
31.
OliveM. L.FrancoJ. H. (2008). (Effect) size matters: And so does the calculation. Behavior Analyst Today, 9(1), 5–10. http://doi.org/10.1037/h0100642
32.
*OroscoM. 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
33.
OusleyC. L.RaulstonT. J.GregoriE. V.McNaughtonD.BhanaN.MantzorosT. (2020). A comparison of single-case evaluation tools applied to functional communication training with augmentative and alternative communication supports for students with developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 107, 103803. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2020.103803
34.
ParkerR. I.Hagan-BurkeS.VannestS. (2007). Percentage of all nonoverlapping data (PAND): An alternative to PND. The Journal of Special Education, 40(4), 194–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669070400040101
35.
ParkerR. I.VannestK. J.DavisJ. L.SauberS. B. (2011). Combining nonoverlap and trend for single-case research: Tau-U. Behavior Therapy, 42(2), 284–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2010.08.006
36.
PeltierC.MoranoS.ShinM.StevensonN.McKennaJ. W. (2020). A decade review of single-case graph construction in the field of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.1224
37.
PolitD. F.BeckC. T.OwenS. V. (2007). Is the ICV an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Research in Nursing and Health, 30(4), 459–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20199
38.
RadleyK. C.DartE. H.WrightS. J. (2018). The effect of data points per x-to y-axis ratio on visual analysts evaluation of single-case graphs. School Psychology Quarterly, 33(2), 314–322. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000243
39.
RosenbergM. S.BottD.MajsterekD.ChiangB.SimmonsD.GartlandD.WessonC.GrahamS.Smith-MylesB.MillerM.SwansonH. L.BenderW.RiveraA.WilsonR. (1994). Minimum standards for the description of participants in learning disabilities research. Remedial and Special Education, 15(1), 56–59.
40.
*SatsangiR.BouckE. C. (2015). Using virtual manipulative instruction to teach the concepts of area and perimeter to secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 38(3), 174–186. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0731948714550101
41.
*SatsangiR.BouckE. C.Taber-DoughtyT.BofferdingL.RobertsC. A. (2016). Comparing the effectiveness of virtual and concrete manipulatives to teach algebra to secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 39(4), 240–253. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0731948716649754
42.
*SatsangiR.HammerR.HoganC. D. (2018). Studying virtual manipulatives paired with explicit instruction to teach algebraic equations to students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 41(4), 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0731948718769248
43.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A.CastoG. (1987). The quantitative synthesis of single-subject research: Methodology and validation. Remedial and Special Education, 8(2), 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F074193258700800206
44.
ShalevR. S. (2007). Prevalence of developmental dyscalculia. In BerchD. B.MaazzoccoM. M. M. (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children? The nature and origins of mathematical learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 49–60). Paul H. Brookes.
45.
TarlowK. R. (2017). An improved rank correlation effect size statistic for single-case designs: Baseline Corrected Tau. Behavior Modification, 41(4), 427–467. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0145445516676750
46.
TawneyJ. W.GastD. L. (1984). Single subject research in special education. Merrill.
47.
VannestK. J.NinciJ. (2015). Evaluating intervention effects in single case research designs. Journal of Counseling and Development, 93(4), 403–411. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12038
48.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2017). What Works Clearinghouse standards handbook, version 4.0. Institute of Education Sciences.
49.
What Works Clearinghouse. (2020). What Works Clearinghouse standards handbook, version 4.1. Institute of Education Sciences.
50.
ZimmermanK. N.LedfordJ. R.SeveriniK. E.PustejovskyJ. E.BartonE. E.LloydB. P. (2018). Single-case synthesis tools I: Comparing tools to evaluate SCD quality and rigor. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 79, 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2018.02.003
