Single-Case Research Methods: History and Suitability for a Psychological Science in Need of Alternatives.

Camilo Hurtado-Parrado, Wilson López-López
Author Information
  1. Camilo Hurtado-Parrado: Faculty of Psychology, Fundación Universitaria Konrad Lorenz, Carrera 9A No. 62-27 - Third Floor - Edificio Luna, Bogota, Colombia, camilo.hurtado@konradlorenz.edu.co.

Abstract

This paper presents a historical and conceptual analysis of a group of research strategies known as the Single-Case Methods (SCMs). First, we present an overview of the SCMs, their history, and their major proponents. We will argue that the philosophical roots of SCMs can be found in the ideas of authors who recognized the importance of understanding both the generality and individuality of psychological functioning. Second, we will discuss the influence that the natural sciences' attitude toward measurement and experimentation has had on SCMs. Although this influence can be traced back to the early days of experimental psychology, during which incipient forms of SCMs appeared, SCMs reached full development during the subsequent advent of Behavior Analysis (BA). Third, we will show that despite the success of SCMs in BA and other (mainly applied) disciplines, these designs are currently not prominent in psychology. More importantly, they have been neglected as a possible alternative to one of the mainstream approaches in psychology, the Null Hypothesis Significance Testing (NHST), despite serious controversies about the limitations of this prevailing method. Our thesis throughout this section will be that SCMs should be considered as an alternative to NHST because many of the recommendations for improving the use of significance testing (Wilkinson & the TFSI, 1999) are main characteristics of SCMs. The paper finishes with a discussion of a number of the possible reasons why SCMs have been neglected.

References

  1. Front Psychol. 2010 Mar 08;1:1 [PMID: 21833184]
  2. Am Psychol. 1999 Feb;54(2):117-28 [PMID: 10030138]
  3. Am Psychol. 2008 Feb-Mar;63(2):77-95 [PMID: 18284277]
  4. Psychol Methods. 2012 Dec;17(4):510-50 [PMID: 22845874]
  5. Behav Anal. 1999 Fall;22(2):105-8 [PMID: 22478327]
  6. Phys Ther. 1994 Aug;74(8):768-76 [PMID: 8047564]
  7. Behav Anal. 1999 Fall;22(2):99-103 [PMID: 22478326]
  8. Am Psychol. 1992 Nov;47(11):1371-82 [PMID: 1482004]
  9. Behav Anal. 1990 Fall;13(2):159-61 [PMID: 22478062]
  10. Behav Anal. 1999 Fall;22(2):109-16 [PMID: 22478328]
  11. Science. 1981 Jul 31;213(4507):501-4 [PMID: 7244649]
  12. Am Psychol. 2007 Nov;62(8):751-66 [PMID: 18020741]
  13. Integr Psychol Behav Sci. 2011 Mar;45(1):21-47 [PMID: 21258882]
  14. Behav Modif. 2011 Jul;35(4):303-22 [PMID: 21411481]
  15. Behav Anal. 2013 Fall;36(2):197-208 [PMID: 28018031]
  16. J Exp Anal Behav. 1999 Nov;72(3):455-61 [PMID: 16812925]
  17. Behav Anal. 1990 Fall;13(2):131-58 [PMID: 22478061]
  18. Behav Res Ther. 1993 Jul;31(6):621-31 [PMID: 7880208]
  19. Behav Anal. 1986 Fall;9(2):175-90 [PMID: 22478660]
  20. Br J Nurs. 1996 Nov 28-Dec 11;5(21):1334-7 [PMID: 9015990]
  21. Integr Psychol Behav Sci. 2007 Mar;41(1):6-20 [PMID: 17992864]
  22. Behav Ther. 2007 Mar;38(1):95-105 [PMID: 17292698]
  23. Behav Anal. 1999 Fall;22(2):83-5 [PMID: 22478323]
  24. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1990 Dec;69(6):286-92 [PMID: 2264946]
  25. Span J Psychol. 2009 Nov;12(2):823-32 [PMID: 19899683]
  26. Psychol Methods. 2000 Jun;5(2):241-301 [PMID: 10937333]
  27. Behav Anal. 1999 Fall;22(2):117-21 [PMID: 22478329]
  28. J Exp Anal Behav. 1987 Nov;48(3):439-40 [PMID: 16812504]
  29. Behav Anal. 1998 Fall;21(2):307-20 [PMID: 22478314]
  30. Behav Res Methods. 2011 Sep;43(3):710-9 [PMID: 21437750]
  31. J Pediatr Psychol. 2014 Mar;39(2):124-37 [PMID: 24003176]
  32. Behav Anal. 1999 Fall;22(2):93-7 [PMID: 22478325]
  33. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010 Apr;25(4):225-30 [PMID: 20339903]
  34. Front Psychol. 2010 Jul 07;1:22 [PMID: 21607076]
  35. Integr Psychol Behav Sci. 2008 Sep;42(3):245-65 [PMID: 18528738]
  36. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2005 May;20(3):321-33 [PMID: 15797168]
  37. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2009 Jan;4(1):19-21 [PMID: 26158824]
  38. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2012 Nov;7(6):632-8 [PMID: 26168122]
  39. Psychol Methods. 2001 Dec;6(4):371-86 [PMID: 11778678]
  40. Psychol Methods. 2013 Dec;18(4):572-82 [PMID: 24079924]
  41. Behav Modif. 2010 May;34(3):195-218 [PMID: 20234005]
  42. Behav Anal. 2013 Fall;36(2):209-222 [PMID: 28018032]
  43. Behav Modif. 2004 Mar;28(2):234-46 [PMID: 14997950]
  44. Front Psychol. 2010 Jul 30;1:29 [PMID: 21833199]
  45. Am Psychol. 2000 Feb;55(2):260-3 [PMID: 10717979]
  46. Behav Anal. 1999 Fall;22(2):87-92 [PMID: 22478324]
  47. Epidemiology. 2013 Jan;24(1):62-8 [PMID: 23232611]
  48. J Exp Anal Behav. 2008 Jan;89(1):111-8 [PMID: 18338678]
  49. Am Psychol. 2007 Oct;62(7):671-81 [PMID: 17924750]
  50. Behav Anal. 2004 Fall;27(2):263-80 [PMID: 22478434]
  51. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1998 Feb;66(1):7-18 [PMID: 9489259]
  52. Behav Anal. 1992 Spring;15(1):3-29 [PMID: 22478111]

MeSH Term

Behavioral Research
History, 20th Century
History, 21st Century
Humans
Psychology, Experimental
Research Design

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0SCMswillpsychologypaperSingle-CasecaninfluenceBAdespiteneglectedpossiblealternativeNHSTpresentshistoricalconceptualanalysisgroupresearchstrategiesknownMethodsFirstpresentoverviewhistorymajorproponentsarguephilosophicalrootsfoundideasauthorsrecognizedimportanceunderstandinggeneralityindividualitypsychologicalfunctioningSeconddiscussnaturalsciences'attitudetowardmeasurementexperimentationAlthoughtracedbackearlydaysexperimentalincipientformsappearedreachedfulldevelopmentsubsequentadventBehaviorAnalysisThirdshowsuccessmainlyapplieddisciplinesdesignscurrentlyprominentimportantlyonemainstreamapproachesNullHypothesisSignificanceTestingseriouscontroversieslimitationsprevailingmethodthesisthroughoutsectionconsideredmanyrecommendationsimprovingusesignificancetestingWilkinson&TFSI1999maincharacteristicsfinishesdiscussionnumberreasonsResearchMethods:HistorySuitabilityPsychologicalScienceNeedAlternatives

Similar Articles

Cited By