This article takes issue with Rubm and Knox on three main points: (1) misrepresentation of
single-case experimental designs; (2) logical inconsistencies; and (3) skewed portrayal of
weaknesses existing in single-case designs. Possible reasons why single-case experimental
designs are often misinterpreted in the social work literature are also discussed.
References
1.
Baer, D.M., Wolf, M.M., & Risley, T.R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysisJournal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 91-97.
Gelso, C.J. (1993). On the making of scientist-practitioners: A theory of research training in professional psychologyProfessional Psychology: Research and Practice, 24, 468-476.
4.
Hersen, M., & Barlow, D.H. (1976). Single-case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change.New York: Pergamon.
5.
Kazdin, A.E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings.New York: Oxford University Press.
6.
Pfeiffer, S.I., Burd, S., & Wright, A. (1992). Clinicians and research: Recurring obstacles and some possible solutionsJournal of Clinical Psychology , 48, 140-145.
7.
Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. (1993). Research methods for social work (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
8.
Rubin, A., & Knox, K.S. (1996). Data analysis problems in single-case evaluation: Issues for research on social work practiceResearch on Social Work Practice, 6 , 40-65.
9.
Sidman, M. (1960). Tactics of scientific research: Evaluating experimental data in psychology.New York: Basic Books.
10.
Thyer, B.A. (1987a). Can behavior analysis rescue social work?Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 20, 207-211.
11.
Thyer, B.A. (1987b). Contingency analysis: Toward a unified theory for social work practiceSocial Work, 32, 150-157.
12.
Wells, K., Feldman, R.A., & Kelman, S. (1988). Toward institutionalization of a research capacity in mental health service organizationsProfessional Psychology: Research and Practice,19, 63-67.
