Assessing the Quality of Single-Case Designs in Occupational Therapy: A Scoping Review

Abstract

Importance: Single-case designs (SCDs) offer a powerful research methodology for demonstrating the effectiveness of occupational therapy interventions for diverse clients with individualized needs. However, the current state of the use of SCDs in occupational therapy remains unclear.

Objective: To summarize the current state of and challenges associated with the use of SCDs in occupational therapy.

Data Sources: Articles were retrieved from the following databases: PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, OTDBASE, and CINAHL. Related articles were manually searched to identify relevant studies, with the publication year restricted to 1990 to 2023.

Study Selection and Data Collection: This scoping review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. The search terms used were occupational therapy, single-case design, and synonyms for single-case design. The search was restricted to journals specifically dedicated to occupational therapy.

Findings: Eighty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Existing research has focused on the practice areas of children and youth and physical disabilities or rehabilitation. Moreover, AB designs, ABA designs, and visual analysis that do not meet the What Works Clearinghouse standards are frequently used as research methods.

Conclusions and Relevance: Although SCDs can be highly useful in demonstrating the effectiveness of occupational therapy interventions for diverse clients with individualized needs, considering the quality of SCDs when designing studies is crucial.

Plain-Language Summary: This scoping review delved into the current landscape and challenges of single-case designs (SCDs) in occupational therapy. The findings revealed the pervasive adoption of low-quality designs and the predominant use of visual analysis methods in this field. In light of these findings, it is imperative for future research and development efforts to embrace established guidelines, paving the way for enhanced methodological rigor and robust outcomes.

This scoping review summarizes the current landscape and challenges of single-case designs (SCDs) in occupational therapy.

Single-case design (SCD) is a research methodology applied to experiments that repeatedly observe a single entity over a fixed period with at least one independent variable (Vlaeyen et al., 2020). In contrast to descriptive studies that use a retrospective approach, SCDs use a prospective validation approach, which enables the evaluation of intervention efficacy with as few as one or several cases. Furthermore, SCDs can be effective with clients with rare diseases or comorbidities, populations that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may not be able to study because of limited sample size (Gabler et al., 2011). Indeed, their placement in the upper echelons of the evidence hierarchy is recognized by organizations including the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group, 2011) and for empirically supported therapies in psychology (Chambless & Hollon, 1998). Therefore, SCDs have become a popular research methodology in educational science, psychology, counseling, medicine, nursing, public health, rehabilitation, social work, speech and language, and sports, among others (Kazdin, 2020).

Because the use of SCDs has grown in popularity, specialized guidelines, such as the Single-Case Reporting Guideline In Behavioral Interventions (SCRIBE) statement (Tate et al., 2016) and the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC; 2022) standards have emerged. This has increased scrutiny of research trends and SCD quality in fields such as medicine, psychology, and education (Natesan Batley et al., 2023; Shadish & Sullivan, 2011). In occupational therapy, Pearl et al. (2014) conducted content analyses of five prominent occupational therapy journals published between 2006 and 2010. Their findings revealed 1,344 relevant articles, with the proportion of studies using SCDs being only 6% for the American Journal of Occupational Therapy (AJOT), 1% for the Australian Occupational Therapy Journal (AOTJ), 6% for the British Journal of Occupational Therapy (BJOT), 6% for the Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy (CJOT), and 3% for the Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy (SJOT). Furthermore, McQuaid et al. (2023) conducted an extensive review of case studies in occupational therapy from 2016 to July 2021 and reported that 19 (23%) of 84 empirical studies were SCD studies. Reynolds (2021, 2022, 2023) also reported a breakdown of the evidence levels for articles accepted by AJOT from 2016 to 2023. Although the specific number of SCD studies is not mentioned, an examination of Level 4, which likely encompasses SCDs, reveals a range of one to nine per year. Furthermore, several other studies (Brown & Brown, 2005; Case-Smith & Powell, 2008; Cusick, 1995; Mountain, 1997) have reported the use of SCDs for occupational therapy. However, the number of reported SCD studies is limited, and detailed research on the quality of SCDs is lacking. Although SCDs have long been recognized for their potential to provide a flexible, rigorous, and practice-based set of experimental designs for occupational therapy research and to contribute to the development of evidence in the field as an alternative or complement to RCTs (Lane et al., 2017), comprehensive understanding of SCD studies remains lacking.

The scoping review methodology allows for the identification of key concepts, major sources, and available evidence supporting a research domain by determining, retrieving, and summarizing studies pertinent to specific issues (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). Understanding how SCDs have been applied in occupational therapy is valuable because it can help identify areas for improvement and advance the field. Therefore, in this review we identified and described the nature of the current literature on SCDs in occupational therapy and the potential gaps in the research literature.

Method

Research Design

This scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O’Malley (2005) methodological framework, as refined by Levac et al. (2010) and Colquhoun et al. (2014). The framework encompasses five steps: (1) defining the research question; (2) identifying relevant studies; (3) selecting studies; (4) charting the data; and (5) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results. The findings of this review are reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidance (Tricco et al., 2018). This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Niigata University of Rehabilitation (No. 233).

Eligibility Criteria

We used the population, concept, and context (PCC) criteria to establish the eligibility criteria (Peters et al., 2015). The population consisted of clients receiving occupational therapy intervention based on an SCD. The concept was to understand the overview and quality of SCDs used in occupational therapy. The context was the use of SCDs in occupational therapy journals. Because of the diverse range of journals covering occupational therapy, it is highly difficult to comprehensively extract all SCD literature related to occupational therapy. Building on Pearl et al.’s (2014) study, which limited its scope to five major occupational therapy journals, our study expanded the search scope to include journals with occupational therapy in their titles, thereby allowing us to focus more closely on occupational therapy practice. Our inclusion criteria were limited to English-language sources published between 1990 and 2023. Although the origins of SCD in rehabilitation are uncertain, this time frame was selected on the basis of the findings of Perdices et al. (2006), who reported a significant increase in SCD research in neuropsychological rehabilitation after 1990.

According to the SCRIBE statement, withdrawal/reversal design (WRD), multiple-baseline design (MBD), alternating treatments design (ATD), and changing criterion design (CCD) are considered true experiments in SCD (Tate et al., 2016). Although the statement explicitly excludes one-phase designs, pre–post interventions, and case descriptions, it is worth noting that the SCD category also encompasses designs involving phase change without reversal, such as the AB design (Shadish & Sullivan, 2011). Consequently, we included these designs in our inclusion criteria. The exclusion criteria were as follows: research designs in a case study that was not a book review, editorial, review literature (e.g., systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and narrative reviews), commentary, or conference proceedings; four pages or less; or in languages other than English.

Search Strategy

On the basis of all three elements (PCC) of the scoping review question, on August 30, 2023, a search of five databases was performed from their inception, and another journal was hand-searched from inception. The databases were PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, OTDBASE, and CINAHL. PubMed, Web of Science, and PsycINFO were chosen for their common use in previous SCD reviews (Smith, 2012; Tanious & Onghena, 2021). OTDBASE was selected for its occupational therapy focus. CINAHL, despite its nursing emphasis, was included for comprehensive literature retrieval, given its coverage of occupational therapy. In addition, the Asian Journal of Occupational Therapy (AsJOT) was hand-searched. The following terms were used to search the titles of potential studies: occupational therapy (MeSH term), single-case design, single-case study, single-case studies, single-case trial, single-case experimental design, single-case research design, single-subject design, single-subject trial, single-subject study, single-subject studies, single-subject experimental design, single-subject research design, and n-of-1 trial (see Table A.1 in the Supplemental Material, available online with this article at https://research.aota.org/ajot). The search was refined using subject heading terms, Boolean operators, and truncation.

Screening and Selection

In the first screening, duplicate sources were removed after the search strategy was implemented in EndNote. The remaining sources were then exported to Rayyan (https://www.rayyan.ai/), a web application for systematic reviews, where a second deduplication was performed. Takao Kaneko and Masataka Shikata independently screened the titles and abstracts of the uploaded sources using the PCC and inclusion criteria. Any conflicts were resolved by Yuki Choji, whose decision was final. A second screening was performed in Rayyan to review the full texts of the sources that passed the title and abstract screening. Kaneko and Shikata screened the full texts of the first three sources together and then independently screened the rest of the sources. Any conflicts were discussed and resolved with Choji’s input, and the inclusion and exclusion criteria were regularly reviewed. The extraction of the literature for analysis was illustrated using a PRISMA-ScR flow diagram (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram of studies included in the scoping review.

Data Items and Synthesis Methods

Two authors (Takao Kaneko and Masataka Shikata) collected the data from studies included in the review. In cases in which discrepancies in the collected data were identified, another reviewer (Yuki Choji) acted as arbiter. Data were extracted on general information (i.e., title, authors, country, journal, and year of publication), subject characteristics (i.e., sample size, age, sex, and diagnosis), and occupational therapy intervention characteristics (i.e., designs, practice areas, intervention, primary and secondary outcomes, analysis method, and presence or absence of raw data). Moreover, the types of occupational therapy interventions were classified into six categories (i.e., occupations and activities, interventions to support occupations, education and training, advocacy, group interventions, and virtual interventions) based on the Occupational Therapy Practice Framework: Domain and Process (4th ed. [OTPF–4]; American Occupational Therapy Association, 2020). The types of outcomes were classified into three categories (response-specific measures, psychophysiological measures, and self- and other-reported measures) on the basis of Kazdin’s (2020) assessment strategies. Note that if multiple types applied to a single intervention, they were each recorded. Data from the articles were entered into Microsoft Excel and synthesized using a descriptive approach. We summarized the publication years, journals, design types, populations, types of occupational therapy interventions, and outcomes.

Quality Assessment and Risk of Bias

Currently, no tool is universally accepted as the best tool for evaluating the quality of SCDs (Wendt & Miller, 2012); however, we used the WWC (2022) standards, which have been established for validity. The most common method for evaluating the quality of SCDs is the Quality Indicators Within Single- Subject Research tool (Horner et al., 2005); however, since 2017, the WWC standards have been used more frequently (Moeyaert & Dehghan-Chaleshtori, 2023). The WWC standards provide a critical framework not only for assessing the quality of SCD studies but also for evaluating the risk of bias. An SCD must meet four criteria to be deemed potential evidence of an intervention’s success by the WWC standards: (1) data availability, (2) researcher-manipulated independent variable, (3) no residual treatment effects, and (4) design assessment. Note that because “no residual treatment effects” is only applicable to designs involving two or more interventions, such as ATD, it was not considered in this study. The checkpoints for the criteria we considered are as follows:

▪ Data availability refers to whether raw data are presented in a graphical or tabular format.

▪ The researcher-manipulated independent variable requires evidence that the independent variable was systematically manipulated by the researcher.

▪ The design assessment requires that the study be designed in such a way that it allows for at least three demonstrations of an intervention effect at three separate times.

Furthermore, each tier requires a minimum of six data points in the first baseline phase, with all subsequent phases requiring at least five data points per phase (WWC, 2022). Moreover, because the WWC requires interobserver agreement (IOA) of at least 80% for all outcome variables, measured in at least 20% of the data for each experimental condition, we investigated IOA for each article.

Results

The initial database searches yielded 5,474 publications, with one additional publication discovered through a hand search (Figure 1). After the removal of duplicates, 2,006 articles were retained for preliminary screening. A total of 1,910 articles were rejected on the basis of title and abstract screening. The remaining publications were scrutinized further using the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and additional studies were eliminated. A total of 88 articles met all eligibility requirements.

Publication Year, Country Representation, and Journal Distribution in Practice Areas

The examined articles were published between 1990 and 2023 (Figure 2). An analysis of articles published in a leading occupational therapy journal revealed that, on average, 2.59 (SD = 1.86) articles were published per year, except for 2006, when none were published. Examining the number of articles published every 10 yr from 1990, a clear upward trend was observed: In 1990–1999, 22 articles were published; in 2000–2009, 23 articles; and in 2010–2019, 32 articles.

Figure 2.

Annual number of published articles.

Country-based analysis revealed that the United States had the highest number of publications with 45 (51.14%), followed by Canada and the United Kingdom with 9 (10.23%) each and Japan with 5 (5.68%). In terms of practice areas, the greatest volume of publications were related to children and youth, with 46 (52.27%), followed by physical disabilities or rehabilitation with 26 (29.55%) and geriatrics and community with 5 (5.68%) each. For further details, please refer to Table 1.

Table 1.

Number of Articles on Practice Areas by Country

Country	Practice Area							Total, n (％)
Country	Children and Youth	Physical Disabilities or Rehabilitation	Geriatrics	Community	Mental Health	Health and Wellness	Work and Industry	Total, n (％)
United States	30	10	0	1	2	2	0	45 (51.14)
Canada	4	0	1	3	1	0	0	9 (10.23)
United Kingdom	1	7	1	0	0	0	0	9 (10.23)
Japan	0	3	2	0	0	0	0	5 (5.68)
Australia	3	1	0	0	0	0	0	4 (4.55)
Korea	3	0	0	1	0	0	0	4 (4.55)
Sweden	2	1	0	0	1	0	0	4 (4.55)
Iran	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	2 (2.27)
India	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1 (1.14)
Italy	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1 (1.14)
Hong Kong	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1 (1.14)
Netherlands	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1 (1.14)
New Zealand	0	0	1	0	0	0	0	1 (1.14)
Taiwan	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	1 (1.14)
Total, n (％)	46 (52.27)	26 (29.55)	5 (5.68)	5 (5.68)	4 (4.55)	2 (2.27)	0 (0)	88 (100)

Journal-based analysis indicated that AJOT had the highest publication count with 27 (30.68%); followed by Occupational Therapy International with 16 (18.18%); BJOT with 11 (12.50%); CJOT with 6 (6.82%); Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics with 5 (5.68%); Occupational Therapy Journal of Research and Occupational Therapy in Mental Health with 4 (4.55%) each; and AOTJ, Hong Kong Journal of Occupational Therapy, Physical and Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics, and SJOT with 3 (3.41%) each. AsJOT, Indian Journal of Occupational Therapy, and Open Journal of Occupational Therapy each contributed 1 (1.14%) publication.

Participant and Occupational Therapy Intervention Characteristics

This review encompassed 291 participants with SCD, ranging from 1 to 20 participants per study, with an average of 3.31 (SD = 2.93). Of these, 147 (50.52%) were male, 115 (39.52%) were female, and the sex of the remaining 29 participants (9.97%) was unreported. Age ranged from <1 yr to 92 yr. Autism spectrum disorder topped the list of diagnoses (103 data points), appearing in 17 studies (16.5%). Stroke, brain injury, and cerebral palsy were also prevalent and were observed in 12 studies (11.65%), 10 studies (9.71%), and nine studies (8.74%), respectively. On the basis of the OTPF–4 (94 data points), interventions to support occupations were the most common type of occupational therapy intervention (57 studies; 60.64%). Other interventions included occupations and activities (28 studies; 29.79%), education and training (8 studies; 8.51%), and virtual interventions (1 study; 1.06%). No studies have used advocacy or group interventions.

Interventions to support occupations included compensatory training using assistive devices to prepare for occupational performance, such as wearing a weighted vest (Fertel-Daly et al., 2001) or the use of computer devices (DeVries et al., 1998). Occupations and activities included the use of therapeutic occupations, such as sensory integration (Bulkeley et al., 2016; Case-Smith & Bryan, 1999; Green et al., 2003; Urwin & Ballinger, 2005; Waldman-Levi & Kuhaneck, 2023; Watling & Dietz, 2007; Whiting et al., 2023), Cognitive Orientation to daily Occupational Performance (Gharebaghy et al., 2015), and constraint-induced movement therapy (McConnell et al., 2014). Education and training included driving rehabilitation training (Sam & Missal, 2016).

On the basis of Kazdin’s (2020) assessment strategies, the most common type of outcome measure (104 data points) was response-specific measures, with 78 studies (75.00%), followed by self- and other-reported measures, with 23 studies (22.12%), and psychophysiological measures, with three studies (2.88%). Response-specific measures are evaluation methods tailored to specific behaviors under study and include assessments such as frequency of behavior and performance evaluation (Crocker et al., 1997; Gutman, Raphael-Greenfield, & Rao, 2012). Psychophysiological measures included oxygen saturation (Kim & Kim, 2018), the Bristol stool scale (Rivi et al., 2014), and hemoglobin A1c (Haltiwanger & Galindo, 2013). Self- and other-reported measures included the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM; Lammi & Law, 2003; Metcalfe et al., 2019; Ullenhag et al., 2020) and questionnaires completed by family members (Nwora & Gee, 2009).

On the basis of these findings, the breakdown of interventions and outcome measures was diverse; however, among interventions, sensory integration was the most frequently reported, with seven studies (7.95%; Bulkeley et al., 2016; Case-Smith & Bryan, 1999; Green et al., 2003; Urwin & Ballinger, 2005; Waldman-Levi & Kuhaneck, 2023; Watling & Dietz, 2007; Whiting et al., 2023), and the COPM was the most frequently reported outcome measure, also with seven studies (7.95%; Gharebaghy et al., 2015; Haltiwanger & Galindo, 2013; Lammi & Law, 2003; Metcalfe et al., 2019; Paquette et al., 2013; Piven & Duran, 2014; Ullenhag et al., 2020). For a comprehensive overview of the study findings, please refer to Table A.2 in the Supplemental Material.

SCD Characteristics

Of the 88 articles, 90 designs were confirmed. The most frequent design was WRD, accounting for 47 studies (52.22%), followed by phase change without reversal, with 26 studies (28.89%); MBD, with 13 studies (14.44%); ATD, with two studies (2.22%); and other, with two studies (2.22%; Table 2). In the category of phase change without reversal, the AB design was the most common, occurring in 20 studies (22.22%). Other categories included applied designs such as ABC-MBD and AC-MBD, as reported by Pellerito (2003).

Table 2.

Single-Case Design Characteristics

Characteristic	Frequency	%
Design type (n = 90)
Phase change without reversal	26	28.89
AB	20	22.22
ABC	4	4.44
ABB	1	1.11
ABBC	1	1.11
WRD	47	52.22
ABA	31	34.44
ABAB	12	13.33
ABACAD	1	1.11
ABCACA	1	1.11
BCBC	1	1.11
CBCBCB	1	1.11
MBD	13	14.44
ATD	2	2.22
CCD	0	0
Other	2	2.22
Type of analysis (n = 185)
Visual analysis	79	42.7
Trend line analysis
CL	14	7.57
RL	8	4.32
NR	6	3.24
SDBM	21	11.35
Autocorrelation	14	7.57
Descriptive analysis	9	4.86
t test	5	2.70
Wilcoxon t test	5	2.70
Binomial test	4	2.16
C statistic	3	1.62
Effect size
PND	5	2.70
NAP	3	1.62
Cohen’s d	2	1.08
SMD	1	0.54
Other	6	3.24
WWC standards (n = 88)
Data availability
Yes	76	86.36
No	12	13.64
Researcher-manipulated independent variable
Yes	88	100
No	0	0
Research design requirements
Yes	13	14.77
No	75	85.23
Interobserver agreement
Yes	37	42.05
No	51	57.95

Note. ATD = alternating treatments design; CCD = changing criterion design; CL = celeration line/split-middle technique; MBD = multiple-baseline design; NAP = nonoverlap of all pairs; NR = not reported; PND = percentage of nonoverlapping data; SMD = standardized mean difference; RL = regression line/least squares method; SDBM = standard deviation band method/2 standard deviation band; Wilcoxon t test = Wilcoxon signed rank test/Mann–Whitney U; WRD = withdrawal/reversal design; WWC = What Works Clearinghouse.

In total, 185 SCD analysis methods were identified, with visual analysis accounting for 79 methods (42.70%), followed by the standard deviation band method/2 standard deviation band with 21 methods (11.35%) and autocorrelation with 14 methods (7.57%). Furthermore, for visual analysis, 28 (35.44%) of the 79 methods used trend line analysis techniques, such as the celeration line with the split-middle technique or the regression line by the least squares method. Furthermore, of the 185 methods, only 11 studies (5.95%) reported effect sizes, with percentage of nonoverlapping data being the most commonly used. Table 2 presents a detailed description of the SCD characteristics.

WWC Standards

Data availability and researcher-manipulated independent variables met WWC (2022) standards in 76 of 88 studies (86.36%) and 88 of 88 studies (100%), respectively. In contrast, research design requirements were met in only 13 of 88 studies (14.77%). As shown in Table 2, only true experimental designs met the research design requirements, and within WRD, this was limited to ABAB designs. Furthermore, the number of data points in each phase did not meet the criteria of six or more for the initial baseline and five or more for the subsequent phases. Finally, IOA was assessed in 37 studies (42.05%).

Discussion

This scoping review describes trends in SCD research published in occupational therapy journals worldwide. Our findings suggest that SCD is predominantly used in the practice areas of children and youth and physical disabilities or rehabilitation. However, the quantity and quality of SCD studies remain limited, exhibiting sluggish growth over time. These observations warrant careful consideration and discussion.

First, children and youth emerged as the primary practice setting for SCD implementation, with sensory integration being the most prevalent intervention approach. Although occupational therapy practice varies significantly across countries (von Zweck et al., 2023), pediatrics has consistently been a major area of focus, along with physical disabilities and rehabilitation, in regions including the United States (Kreider et al., 2014; Lee et al., 2008), Canada (Brown et al., 2007), Australia (Rodger et al., 2005), and the Eastern Mediterranean (Jasem, 2024). Furthermore, SCD allows for the evaluation of intervention effects with as few as one or a few participants, making it especially well-suited to individuals with rare diseases or comorbidities. Therefore, it is likely that more reports of SCD have emerged in the field of children and youth, who are often excluded from the eligibility criteria for RCTs. In contrast, the findings revealed a complete absence of SCD usage reports in the work and industry domain. This observation aligns with and supports the conclusions of Jesus et al. (2023), who highlighted the need for accumulated research across various research designs in this area, specifically extending beyond the scope of SCD studies.

Second, although the COPM was the most frequently reported outcome measure, response-specific measures, as a category, accounted for the largest proportion of outcomes assessed. This observation aligns with SCD’s foundation in applied behavior analysis (Kazdin, 2020), which traditionally emphasizes objective measures over subjective evaluations, such as self- and other-reported measures. To effectively capture clients’ diverse changes, the integration of self- and other-reported measures into SCD assessments is also crucial. However, this necessitates the use of standardized scales that can withstand repeated measurements. Although the COPM serves as a valuable outcome tool for occupational therapists, its susceptibility to response shift and potential changes over time (Ohno et al., 2021) warrants cautious consideration when considering its suitability for use with SCD.

Third, numerous studies have examined the quantity and quality of SCD studies in various disciplines. Shadish and Sullivan (2011) investigated 21 psychology and education journals published in 2008 and identified 809 SCD studies. Of these, MBD, WRD, ATD, and CCD accounted for 54.3%, 8.2%, 8.0%, and 2.6%, respectively. Similarly, Smith (2012) reviewed SCD studies published in peer-reviewed journals between 2000 and 2010 and found that, of 409 studies, MBD, WRD, ATD, and CCD constituted 69%, 17%, 6%, and 4%, respectively. Tanious and Onghena (2021) conducted a review of applied SCD studies published between 2016 and 2018 and identified 423 studies; MBD, WRD and phase change without reversal, ATD, and CCD accounted for 49.65%, 25.53%, 14.42%, and 1.42%, respectively. These findings consistently indicate that MBD, which is a true experimental design, is the predominant methodology in other disciplines. However, AB designs and ABA designs, which do not meet the WWC standards, are frequently used in the field of occupational therapy. One potential reason is a lack of understanding of SCD among occupational therapists. Despite SCD being well suited to evaluating interventions in applied settings, such as clinics, schools, and homes, its methodology is rarely taught in academic programs (Kazdin, 2020; Tate et al., 2016). Lane et al. (2017) found that occupational therapists often confuse SCD with case studies, despite recognizing its utility. Additionally, the continued dominance of RCTs as the gold standard for intervention research may lead clinicians to favor group comparison studies over SCDs (Grossman & Mackenzie, 2005). Practical challenges in clinical settings also hinder the adoption of SCD. For instance, carryover effects of interventions, ethical concerns in establishing baselines, and difficulties in collecting continuous time-series data can make SCD implementation challenging (Kennedy, 2005). However, a deeper understanding of SCD can address these issues through techniques such as probes and MBDs. Further research is needed to fully understand why the use of SCD in occupational therapy has not grown.

Fourth, visual analysis was the predominant method used in the reviewed SCD studies, accounting for 42.70%. Only 5.95% of the studies reported effect sizes, highlighting a gap in analysis. Smith (2012) similarly reported that statistical methods were used for data analysis in only 13.9% of SCD studies, supporting the low prevalence of visual analysis in the field of occupational therapy. However, numerous studies have questioned the validity of visual analysis (Dowdy et al., 2022; Ninci et al., 2015). This is because results can be misinterpreted if there are trends or variability in the baseline. Therefore, the use of visual aids (Manolov & Vannest, 2023) and the adoption of effect size measures, such as nonoverlap of all pairs and between-case standardized mean difference, are strongly recommended (WWC, 2022).

In this study, we used the WWC (2022) standards to evaluate the quality of SCD studies in occupational therapy. However, acknowledging the absence of a universally agreed-upon set of standards for evaluating SCD quality is important. Despite this, SCD remains a powerful design for evaluating the effectiveness of occupational therapy interventions across diverse client populations. Therefore, refining SCD quality within occupational therapy is crucial. This necessitates the adoption of stronger experimental designs, such as ABAB or higher level WRD, MBD, ATD, and CCD. Furthermore, ensuring adequate data points, using multiple effect sizes along with visual analysis, and adhering to established guidelines, such as the WWC standards, are essential steps for improving the quality of SCD studies in occupational therapy.

Finally, this scoping review has several limitations. The review was limited to journals with the term occupational therapy in their titles, which may preclude a comprehensive understanding of SCD research in the field. Furthermore, this review is limited to English-language literature, omitting insights from studies published in other languages. Additionally, although the WWC standards were used to assess study quality, they may not have fully captured the risk of bias in all studies. Future research should expand the search range and aim for a more comprehensive synthesis of SCD studies in occupational therapy.

Implications for Occupational Therapy Practice and Research

This scoping review summarizes the available evidence for the use of SCD in occupational therapy. It has the following key implications for occupational therapy practice and research:

▪ Existing research has focused on the practice area of children and youth with physical disabilities or rehabilitation.

▪ Many SCDs in occupational therapy do not meet WWC (2022) standards. The use of true experimental designs, such as ABAB or MBD, is recommended.

▪ Visual analysis was the primary method of effect determination. The use of effect sizes in conjunction with visual analysis is recommended.

▪ When using self-reported outcomes in SCDs, repeated measures should be considered.

Conclusion

This scoping review provides a comprehensive overview of the current evidence and challenges associated with the use of SCDs in occupational therapy. SCDs offer a robust methodology for demonstrating the effectiveness of occupational therapy interventions across diverse client populations. However, despite their potential, SCDs remain underused in the profession. Their application is predominantly limited to specific practice areas, such as children and youth and physical disabilities or rehabilitation. Moreover, the quantity and quality of existing SCD studies are suboptimal. Visual analysis persists as the primary method for data analysis, with minimal use of effect sizes. To address these shortcomings, future research endeavors should prioritize enhancing the quality of SCD research, adhering to established guidelines, such as the WWC (2022) standards. This concerted effort will foster the development of a more robust and credible evidence base supporting the efficacy of occupational therapy interventions.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Information

Supplementary material for Assessing the Quality of Single-Case Designs in Occupational Therapy: A Scoping Review

Supplementary material, sj-pdf-1-aot-10.5014_ajot.2025.050932.pdf for Assessing the Quality of Single-Case Designs in Occupational Therapy: A Scoping Review by Yuki Choji, Takao Kaneko, Masataka Shikata, Ryo Tokuchi, Tetsuya Sano and Kenji Yabuwaki in The American Journal of Occupational Therapy

Footnotes

*Indicates articles included in the scoping review.

Acknowledgments

We extend our appreciation to those who provided valuable data, research findings, and evidence-based practices for this study. This scoping review is registered on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/m6vkr). Although it does not have a specific registration number, the review is obtainable through online search queries. This research did not receive any funding.

References

American Occupational Therapy Association. (2020). Occupational therapy practice framework: Domain and process (4th ed.). American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 74(Suppl. 2), 7412410010. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2020.74S2001

* Angelo

(1992). Comparison of three computer scanning modes as an interface method for persons with cerebral palsy. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 46, 217–222. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.46.3.217

* Applegate

S. L.

Rice

M. S.

Stein

, & Maitra

K. K.

(2008). Knowledge of results and learning to tell the time in an adult male with an intellectual disability: A single-subject research design. Occupational Therapy International, 15, 32–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/oti.242

Arksey

, & O’Malley

(2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8, 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616

* Bagatell

Mirigliani

Patterson

Reyes

, & Test

(2010). Effectiveness of therapy ball chairs on classroom participation in children with autism spectrum disorders. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 64, 895–903. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2010.09149

Brown

G. T.

, & Brown

(2005). Characteristics of the Occupational Therapy Journal of Research: The first twenty years. Occupational Therapy in Health Care, 19, 73–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/J003v19n03_06

Brown

G. T.

Rodger

Brown

, & Roever

(2007). A profile of Canadian pediatric occupational therapy practice. Occupational Therapy in Health Care, 21, 39–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/J003v21n04_03

* Bulkeley

Bundy

Roberts

, & Einfeld

(2016). Family-centered management of sensory challenges of children with autism: Single-case experimental design. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 70, 7005220040. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2016.017822

* Buning

M. E.

, & Hanzlik

J. R.

(1993). Adaptive computer use for a person with visual impairment. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 47, 998–1008. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.47.11.998

10.

* Butler

(2000). Rehabilitation in severe ideomotor apraxia using sensory stimulation strategies: A single-case experimental design study. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 63, 319–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/030802260006300705

11.

* Cardona

M. D. P.

Martinez

A. L.

, & Hinojosa

(2000). Effectiveness of using a computer to improve attention to visual analysis activities of five preschool children with disabilities. Occupational Therapy International, 7, 42–56. https://doi.org/10.1002/oti.106

12.

* Case-Smith

, & Bryan

(1999). The effects of occupational therapy with sensory integration emphasis on preschool-age children with autism. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 53, 489–497. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.53.5.489

13.

Case-Smith

, & Powell

C. A.

(2008). Concepts in clinical scholarship: Research literature in occupational therapy, 2001–2005. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 480–486. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.62.4.480

14.

Chambless

D. L.

, & Hollon

S. D.

(1998). Defining empirically supported therapies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 7–18. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-006x.66.1.7

15.

* Chippendale

, & Segal

(2002). A pilot study of the effectiveness of using leisure versus activities of daily living to increase standing tolerance in the elderly population. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics, 21, 41–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/J148v21n02_04

16.

* Classen

Monahan

Canonizado

, & Winter

(2014). Utility of an occupational therapy driving intervention for a combat veteran. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 68, 405–411. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2014.010041

17.

Colquhoun

H. L.

Levac

O’Brien

K. K.

Straus

Tricco

A. C.

Perrier

, … Moher

(2014). Scoping reviews: Time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67, 1291–1294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013

18.

* Corn

Imms

Timewell

Carter

Collins

Dubbeld

, … Froude

(2003). Impact of second skin Lycra splinting on the quality of upper limb movement in children. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 66, 464–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/030802260306601005

19.

* Crocker

M. D.

MacKay-Lyons

, & McDonnell

(1997). Forced use of the upper extremity in cerebral palsy: A single-case design. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 51, 824–833. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.51.10.824

20.

* Cruz

Petrie

Goudie

Kersel

, & Evans

(2016). Text messages reduce memory failures in adults with brain injury: A single-case experimental design. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 79, 598–606. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308022616640299

21.

Cusick

(1995). Australian occupational therapy research: A review of publications 1987–91. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 42, 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1630.1995.tb01314.x

22.

* Dawson

, & Thornton

(2003). Can patients with unilateral neglect following stroke drive electrically powered wheelchairs? British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 66, 496–504. https://doi.org/10.1177/030802260306601102

23.

* de Joode

E. A.

van Boxtel

M. P.

Hartjes

Verhey

F. R.

, & van Heugten

C. M.

(2013). Use of an electronic cognitive aid by a person with Korsakoff syndrome. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 20, 446–453. https://doi.org/10.3109/11038128.2013.821161

24.

* DeVries

R. C.

Deitz

, & Anson

(1998). A comparison of two computer access systems for functional text entry. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 52, 656–665. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.52.8.656

25.

* Dickerson

A. E.

, & Brown

L. E.

(2007). Pediatric constraint-induced movement therapy in a young child with minimal active arm movement. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61, 563–573. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.61.5.563

26.

* Dionne

, & Martini

(2011). Floor time play with a child with autism: A single-subject study. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 78, 196–203. https://doi.org/10.2182/cjot.2011.78.3.8

27.

Dowdy

Jessel

Saini

, & Peltier

(2022). Structured visual analysis of single-case experimental design data: Developments and technological advancements. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 55, 451–462. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.899

28.

* Dunbar

S. B.

Jarvis

A. H.

, & Breyer

(1991). The transition from nonoral to oral feeding in children. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45, 402–408. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.45.5.402

29.

* Durfee

J. L.

, & Billingsley

F. F.

(1999). A comparison of two computer input devices for uppercase letter matching. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 53, 214–220. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.53.2.214

30.

* Edmans

J. A.

, & Lincoln

N. B.

(1991). Treatment of visual perceptual deficits after stroke: Single case studies on four patients with right hemiplegia. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 54, 139–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/030802269105400406

31.

* Fertel-Daly

Bedell

, & Hinojosa

(2001). Effects of a weighted vest on attention to task and self-stimulatory behaviors in preschoolers with pervasive developmental disorders. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 55, 629–640. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.55.6.629

32.

Gabler

N. B.

Duan

Vohra

, & Kravitz

R. L.

(2011). N-of-1 trials in the medical literature: A systematic review. Medical Care, 49, 761–768. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e318215d90d

33.

* Gee

B. M.

Scharp

, & Williams

(2021). Weighted blankets and sleep quality in children with autism spectrum disorders: A single-subject design. Open Journal of Occupational Therapy, 9, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.15453/2168-6408.1704

34.

* Gee

B. M.

Thompson

, & St John

(2014). Efficacy of a sound-based intervention with a child with an autism spectrum disorder and auditory sensory over-responsivity. Occupational Therapy International, 21, 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/oti.1359

35.

* Ghaffari

Azad

Zarei

M. A.

Rassafiani

, & Sharif Nia

(2022). Effect of occupation performance coaching with four-quadrant model of facilitated learning on children with specific learning disorder. Occupational Therapy International, 2022, 4654204. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/4654204

36.

* Gharebaghy

Rassafiani

, & Cameron

(2015). Effect of cognitive intervention on children with ADHD. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 35, 13–23. https://doi.org/10.3109/01942638.2014.957428

37.

* Golisz

Waldman-Levi

Swierat

R. P.

, & Toglia

(2018). Adults with intellectual disabilities: Case studies using everyday technology to support daily living skills. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 81, 514–524. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308022618764781

38.

* Goodman

, & Bazyk

(1991). The effects of a short thumb opponens splint on hand function in cerebral palsy: A single-subject study. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45, 726–731. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.45.8.726

39.

* Green

Beaton

Moore

Warren

Wick

Sanford

J. E.

, & Santosh

(2003). Clinical incidence of sensory integration difficulties in adults with learning disabilities and illustration of management. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 66, 454–463. https://doi.org/10.1177/030802260306601004

40.

Grossman

, & Mackenzie

F. J.

(2005). The randomized controlled trial: Gold standard, or merely standard? Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 48, 516–534. https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2005.0092

41.

* Gustafsson

Walter

Bower

Slaughter

, & Hoyle

(2014). Single-case design evaluation of compression therapy for edema of the stroke-affected hand. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 68, 203–211. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2014.009423

42.

* Gutman

S. A.

Raphael

E. I.

Ceder

L. M.

Khan

Timp

K. M.

, & Salvant

(2010). The effect of a motor-based, social skills intervention for adolescents with high-functioning autism: Two single-subject design cases. Occupational Therapy International, 17, 188–197. https://doi.org/10.1002/oti.300

43.

* Gutman

S. A.

Raphael-Greenfield

E. I.

Kerr

Seidlitz

, & Wang

(2014). Using motor-based role-play to enhance social skills in a nonverbal adolescent with high functioning autism: A case report. Occupational Therapy in Mental Health, 30, 12–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/0164212X.2014.878235

44.

* Gutman

S. A.

Raphael-Greenfield

E. I.

, & Rao

A. K.

(2012). Effect of a motor-based role-play intervention on the social behaviors of adolescents with high-functioning autism: Multiple-baseline single-subject design. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 66, 529–537. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2012.003756

45.

* Gutman

S. A.

Raphael-Greenfield

E. I.

, & Salvant

(2012). The effect of an occupational therapy role-playing intervention on the social skills of adolescents with Asperger’s syndrome: A pilot study. Occupational Therapy in Mental Health, 28, 20–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/0164212X.2012.650953

46.

* Hällgren

, & Kottorp

(2005). Effects of occupational therapy intervention on activities of daily living and awareness of disability in persons with intellectual disabilities. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 52, 350–359. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1630.2005.00523.x

47.

* Haltiwanger

E. P.

, & Galindo

(2013). Reduction of depressive symptoms in an elderly Mexican-American female with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A single-subject study. Occupational Therapy International, 20, 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/oti.1338

48.

* Helliwell

(2009). Does the use of a sensory re-education programme improve the somatosensory and motor function of the upper limb in subacute stroke? A single case experimental design. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 72, 551–558. https://doi.org/10.4276/030802209X12601857794853

49.

* Henning

Cordier

Wilkes-Gillan

, & Falkmer

(2016). A pilot play-based intervention to improve the social play interactions of children with autism spectrum disorder and their typically developing playmates. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 63, 223–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/1440-1630.12285

50.

Horner

R. H.

Carr

E. G.

Halle

McGee

Odom

, & Wolery

(2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100203

51.

* Ikiugu

M. N.

Westerfield

M. A.

Lien

J. M.

Theisen

E. R.

Cerny

S. L.

, & Nissen

R. M.

(2015). Empowering people to change occupational behaviours to address critical global issues. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 82, 194–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008417414567529

52.

* Jacobs

Zhu

Dawes

Franco

Huggins

Igari

, … Umez-Eronini

(2011). Wii health: A preliminary study of the health and wellness benefits of Wii Fit on university students. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 74, 262–268. https://doi.org/10.4276/030802211X13074383957823

53.

Jasem

Z. A.

(2024). Profile of paediatric occupational therapy practice in Eastern Mediterranean countries. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 31, 2342536. https://doi.org/10.1080/11038128.2024.2342536

54.

Jesus

T. S.

Mani

von Zweck

Bhattacharjya

Kamalakannan

, & Ledgerd

(2023). The global status of occupational therapy workforce research worldwide: A scoping review. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 77, 7703205080. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2023.050089

55.

Kazdin

A. E.

(2020). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.

56.

Kennedy

C. H.

(2005). Single-case designs for educational research. Pearson Press.

57.

* Kim

M. J.

Park

H. Y.

Yoo

E. Y.

, & Kim

J. R.

(2020). Effects of a cognitive-functional intervention method on improving executive function and self-directed learning in school-aged children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: A single-subject design study. Occupational Therapy International, 2020, 1250801. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1250801

58.

* Kim

M. K.

, & Kim

D. J.

(2018). Effects of oral stimulation intervention in newborn babies with cri du chat syndrome: Single-subject research design. Occupational Therapy International, 2018, 6573508. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6573508

59.

* Kimball

J. G.

Cao

, & Draleau

K. S.

(2018). Efficacy of the Wilbarger Therapressure Program^TM to modulate arousal in women with post-traumatic stress disorder: A pilot study using salivary cortisol and behavioral measures. Occupational Therapy in Mental Health, 34, 86–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/0164212X.2017.1376243

60.

* Kondo

Mann

W. C.

Tomita

, & Ottenbacher

K. J.

(1997). The use of microwave ovens by elderly persons with disabilities. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 51, 739–747. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.51.9.739

61.

* Kottorp

Hällgren

Bernspång

, & Fisher

A. G.

(2003). Client-centred occupational therapy for persons with mental retardation: Implementation of an intervention programme in activities of daily living tasks. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 10, 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/11038120310009416

62.

Kreider

C. M.

Bendixen

R. M.

Huang

Y. Y.

, & Lim

(2014). Review of occupational therapy intervention research in the practice area of children and youth 2009–2013. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 68, e61–e73. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2014.011114

63.

* Lammi

B. M.

, & Law

(2003). The effects of family-centred functional therapy on the occupational performance of children with cerebral palsy. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 70, 285–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/000841740307000505

64.

Lane

J. D.

Ledford

J. R.

, & Gast

D. L.

(2017). Single-case experimental design: Current standards and applications in occupational therapy. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 71, 7102300010. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2017.022210

65.

Lee

S. W.

Taylor

Kielhofner

, & Fisher

(2008). Theory use in practice: A national survey of therapists who use the model of human occupation. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 62, 106–117. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.62.1.106

66.

Levac

Colquhoun

, & O’Brien

K. K.

(2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5, 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69

67.

* Linderman

T. M.

, & Stewart

K. B.

(1999). Sensory integrative-based occupational therapy and functional outcomes in young children with pervasive developmental disorders: A single-subject study. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 53, 207–213. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.53.2.207

68.

* Lockhart

, & Law

(1994). The effectiveness of a multisensory writing programme for improving cursive writing ability in children with sensorimotor difficulties. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61, 206–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/000841749406100405

69.

Manolov

, & Vannest

K. J.

(2023). A visual aid and objective rule encompassing the data features of visual analysis. Behavior Modification, 47, 1345–1376. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445519854323

70.

* Mason

Andrews

, & Wilson

(1991). Late stage Huntington’s disease: Effect of treating specific disabilities. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 54, 4–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/030802269105400103

71.

* McConnell

Johnston

, & Kerr

(2014). Efficacy and acceptability of reduced intensity constraint-induced movement therapy for children aged 9–11 years with hemiplegic cerebral palsy: A pilot study. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 34, 245–259. https://doi.org/10.3109/01942638.2013.866611

72.

* McGruder

Cors

Tiernan

A. M.

, & Tomlin

(2003). Weighted wrist cuffs for tremor reduction during eating in adults with static brain lesions. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 57, 507–516. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.57.5.507

73.

McQuaid

Thomson

, & Bannigan

(2023). Exploring the contribution of case study research to the evidence base for occupational therapy: A scoping review. Systematic Reviews, 12, 132. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02292-4

74.

* Metcalfe

Egan

, & Sauvé-Schenk

(2019). LSVT BIG in late stroke rehabilitation: A single-case experimental design study. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 86, 87–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008417419832951

75.

* Meza

C. V.

Powell

N. J.

, & Covington

(1998). The influence of olfactory intervention on non-nutritive sucking skills in a premature infant. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 18, 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/153944929801800301

76.

* Miyahara

Shimizu

Yamane

, & Hanaoka

(2018). Occupation-based intervention to improve self-awareness in persons with acquired brain injury: A single-case experimental design. Asian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 14, 33–41. https://doi.org/10.11596/asiajot.14.33

77.

* Mizuno

Sadohara

Nihei

Onaka

Nishiura

, & Inoue

(2021). The application of an information support robot to reduce agitation in an older adult with Alzheimer’s disease living alone in a community dwelling: A case study. Hong Kong Journal of Occupational Therapy, 34, 50–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/15691861211005059

78.

Moeyaert

, & Dehghan-Chaleshtori

(2023). Evaluating the design and evidence of single-case experimental designs using the What Works Clearinghouse standards. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 17, 78–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/17489539.2022.2139148

79.

* Moon

Jang

Park

H. Y.

Jung

, & Kim

(2022). The effects of occupation-based community rehabilitation for improving activities of daily living and health-related quality of life of people with disabilities after stroke living at home: A single subject design. Occupational Therapy International, 2022, 6657620. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/6657620

80.

Mountain

G. A.

(1997). A review of the literature in the British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 1989–1996. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 60, 430–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/030802269706001002

81.

* Mulcahey

M. J.

Smith

B. T.

Betz

R. R.

, & Weiss

A. A.

(1995). Outcomes of tendon transfer surgery and occupational therapy in a child with tetraplegia secondary to spinal cord injury. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 49, 607–617. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.49.7.607

82.

* Mulligan

S. E.

, & Hanzlik

J. R.

(1991). The effectiveness of sensory stimulation in the treatment of children with severe head injuries. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 11, 213–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/153944929101100402

83.

Natesan Batley

McClure

E. B.

Brewer

Contractor

A. A.

Batley

N. J.

Hedges

L. V.

, & Chin

(2023). Evidence and reporting standards in N-of-1 medical studies: A systematic review. Translational Psychiatry, 13, 263. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-023-02562-8

84.

Ninci

Vannest

K. J.

Willson

, & Zhang

(2015). Interrater agreement between visual analysts of single-case data: A meta-analysis. Behavior Modification, 39, 510–541. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445515581327

85.

* Nwora

A. J.

, & Gee

B. M.

(2009). A case study of a five-year-old child with pervasive developmental disorder-not otherwise specified using sound-based interventions. Occupational Therapy International, 16, 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/oti.263

86.

OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group. (2011). The Oxford Levels of Evidence 2 . Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/resources/levels-of-evidence/ocebm-levels-of-evidence

87.

Ohno

Tomori

Sawada

, & Kobayashi

(2021). Examining minimal important change of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure for subacute rehabilitation hospital inpatients. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 5, 133. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-021-00405-y

88.

* Paquette

Egan

, & Martini

(2013). Peer mastery in addition to direct instruction post-stroke: A single-subject design. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics, 31, 354–367. https://doi.org/10.3109/02703181.2013.821639

89.

* Park

H. I.

Park

H. Y.

Yoo

, & Han

(2020). Impact of family-centered early intervention in infants with autism spectrum disorder: A single-subject design. Occupational Therapy International, 2020, 1427169. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1427169

90.

* Paterson

Hamilton

M. M.

, & Grant

(2000). The effectiveness of the Hierarchic Dementia Scale in tailoring interventions to reduce problem behaviours in people with Alzheimer’s disease. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 47, 134–140. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1630.2000.00219.x

91.

Pearl

A. W.

Brennan

A. R.

Journey

T. I.

Antill

K. D.

, & McPherson

J. J.

(2014). Content analysis of five occupational therapy journals, 2006–2010: Further review of characteristics of the quantitative literature. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 68, e115–e123. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2014.009704

92.

* Pellerito

J. M.

Jr. (2003). The effects of traditional and computer-aided instruction on promoting independent skin care in adults with paraplegia. Occupational Therapy International, 10, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1002/oti.174

93.

Perdices

Schultz

Tate

McDonald

Togher

Savage

, … Smith

(2006). The evidence base of neuropsychological rehabilitation in acquired brain impairment (ABI): How good is the research? Brain Impairment, 7, 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1375/brim.7.2.119

94.

* Peters

B. C.

Wood

Hepburn

, & Bundy

(2020). Pilot study: Occupational therapy in an equine environment for youth with autism. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 40, 190–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/1539449220912723

95.

Peters

M. D.

Godfrey

C. M.

McInerney

Soares

C. B.

Khalil

, & Parker

(2015). The Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers’ manual 2015: Methodology for JBI scoping reviews. Joanna Briggs Institute.

96.

* Piven

, & Duran

(2014). Reduction of non-adherent behaviour in a Mexican-American adolescent with Type 2 diabetes. Occupational Therapy International, 21, 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/oti.1363

97.

* Qvarfordt

Engerstrom

I. W.

, & Eliasson

A. C.

(2009). Guided eating or feeding: Three girls with Rett syndrome. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 16, 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/11038120802326214

98.

Reynolds

(2021). State of the journal, 2021. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 75, 7506070010. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2021.756004

99.

Reynolds

(2022). State of the journal, 2022. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 76, 7606070010. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2022.076601

100.

Reynolds

(2023). State of the journal, 2023. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 77, 7706070010. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2023.077602

101.

* Ríos Rincón

A. M.

Daum

Miguel Cruz

Liu

, & Stroulia

(2022). Feasibility and acceptability of a serious mobile-game intervention for older adults. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Geriatrics, 40, 295–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/02703181.2022.2030849

102.

* Rivi

Filippi

Fornasari

Mascia

M. T.

Ferrari

, & Costi

(2014). Effectiveness of standing frame on constipation in children with cerebral palsy: A single-subject study. Occupational Therapy International, 21, 115–123. https://doi.org/10.1002/oti.1370

103.

Rodger

Brown

G. T.

, & Brown

(2005). Profile of paediatric occupational therapy practice in Australia. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 52, 311–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1630.2005.00487.x

104.

* Ross

F. L.

(1992). The use of computers in occupational therapy for visual-scanning training. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 46, 314–322. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.46.4.314

105.

* Ross

S. M.

Catena

Twardzik

Hospodar

Cook

Ayyagari

, … Logan

S. W.

(2018). Feasibility of a modified ride-on car intervention on play behaviors during an inclusive playgroup. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 38, 493–509. https://doi.org/10.1080/01942638.2017.1400491

106.

* Rowe

V. T.

, & Neville

(2018). Task oriented training and evaluation at home. Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 38, 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1539449217727120

107.

* Sam

S. T.

, & Missal

(2016). Effectiveness of driving training program in a patient with Guilliane Barré syndrome: A single case study. Indian Journal Occupational Therapy, 48, 84–88.

108.

Shadish

W. R.

, & Sullivan

K. J.

(2011). Characteristics of single-case designs used to assess intervention effects in 2008. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 971–980. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0111-y

109.

* Sharpe

P. A.

, & Ottenbacher

K. J.

(1990). Use of an elbow restraint to improve finger-feeding skills in a child with Rett syndrome. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 44, 328–332. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.44.4.328

110.

* Shimelman

, & Hinojosa

(1995). Gross motor activity and attention in three adults with brain injury. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 49, 973–979. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.49.10.973

111.

* Shull

Deitz

Billingsley

Wendel

, & Kartin

(2004). Assistive technology programming for a young child with profound disabilities: A single-subject study. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 24, 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1300/j006v24n04_04

112.

Smith

J. D.

(2012). Single-case experimental designs: A systematic review of published research and current standards. Psychological Methods, 17, 510–550. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029312

113.

* Tam

S. F.

Man

W. K.

Hui-Chan

C. W.

Lau

Yip

, & Cheung

(2003). Evaluating the efficacy of tele-cognitive rehabilitation for functional performance in three case studies. Occupational Therapy International, 10, 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/oti.175

114.

Tanious

, & Onghena

(2021). A systematic review of applied single-case research published between 2016 and 2018: Study designs, randomization, data aspects, and data analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 53, 1371–1384. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01502-4

115.

Tate

R. L.

Perdices

Rosenkoetter

McDonald

Togher

Shadish

, … Vohra

(2016). The Single-Case Reporting guideline In BEhavioural interventions (SCRIBE) 2016: Explanation and elaboration. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 4, 10–31. https://doi.org/10.1037/arc0000027

116.

* Taylor

R. R.

Kielhofner

Smith

Butler

Cahill

S. M.

Ciukaj

M. D.

, & Gehman

(2009). Volitional change in children with autism: A single-case design study of the impact of hippotherapy on motivation. Occupational Therapy in Mental Health, 25, 192–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/01642120902859287

117.

Tricco

A. C.

Lillie

Zarin

O’Brien

K. K.

Colquhoun

Levac

, … Straus

S. E.

(2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169, 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850

118.

* Tryssenaar

, & Goldberg

(1994). Improving attention in a person with schizophrenia. Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61, 198–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/000841749406100404

119.

* Tunson

, & Candler

(2010). Behavioral states of children with severe disabilities in the multisensory environment. Physical and Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 30, 101–110. https://doi.org/10.3109/01942630903546651

120.

* Ullenhag

Granlund

Almqvist

, & Krumlinde-Sundholm

(2020). A strength-based intervention to increase participation in leisure activities in children with neuropsychiatric disabilities: A pilot study. Occupational Therapy International, 2020, 1358707. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1358707

121.

* Urwin

, & Ballinger

(2005). The effectiveness of sensory integration therapy to improve functional behaviour in adults with learning disabilities: Five single-case experimental designs. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 68, 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/030802260506800202

122.

Vlaeyen

J. W. S.

Wicksell

R. K.

Simons

L. E.

Gentili

T. K.

Tate

R. L.

, … Onghena

(2020). From Boulder to Stockholm in 70 years: Single case experimental designs in clinical research. Psychological Record, 70, 659–670. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-020-00402-5

123.

von Zweck

Naidoo

Govender

, & Ledgerd

(2023). Current practice in occupational therapy for COVID-19 and post-COVID-19 conditions. Occupational Therapy International, 2023, 5886581. https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/5886581

124.

* Waldman-Levi

, & Kuhaneck

(2023). Father-child playfulness: A secondary analysis of a multiple-baseline single-subject study of three children with autism spectrum disorder. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 77, 7702205020. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2023.050081

125.

* Watling

R. L.

, & Dietz

(2007). Immediate effect of Ayres’s Sensory Integration-based occupational therapy intervention on children with autism spectrum disorders. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 61, 574–583. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.61.5.574

126.

Wendt

, & Miller

(2012). Quality appraisal of single-subject experimental designs: An overview and comparison of different appraisal tools. Education and Treatment of Children, 35, 235–268. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2012.0010

127.

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. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Handbooks

128.

* Whiting

C. C.

Schoen

S. A.

, & Niemeyer

(2023). A sensory integration intervention in the school setting to support performance and participation: A multiple-baseline study. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 77, 7702205060. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2023.050135

129.

* Wu

S. H.

Huang

H. T.

Lin

C. F.

, & Chen

M. H.

(1996). Effects of a program on symmetrical posture in patients with hemiplegia: A single-subject design. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 50, 17–23. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.50.1.17

130.

* Yoshida

Sawamura

Ogawa

Ikoma

Asakawa

Yamauchi

, & Sakai

(2014). Flow experience during attentional training improves cognitive functions in patients with traumatic brain injury: An exploratory case study. Hong Kong Journal of Occupational Therapy, 24, 81–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hkjot.2015.01.001

131.

* Yoshihiro

, & Ito

(2017). Effect of passive limb activation by functional electrical stimulation on wheelchair driving in patients with unilateral spatial neglect: A case study. Hong Kong Journal of Occupational Therapy, 30, 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hkjot.2017.10.003

132.

* Yuen

H. K.

(1993). Improved productivity through purposeful use of additional template for a woman with cortical blindness. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 47, 105–110. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.47.2.105

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.31 MB