BA420 Unit 6 Single-Case Evidence Paper Example

Is Self-Monitoring an Evidence-Based Practice for Our School? A BA420 Unit 6 Single-Case Research and Evidence Paper

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

BA420: Methods of Behavior Analysis

Unit 6 Single-Case Research and Evidence Paper

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The writer, the school, the district and every figure are composite and illustrative; the articles and book cited are real.

The Question

Decisions about new programs at our Wichita middle school often come down to evidence. In January, the school's student support team formally proposed using self-monitoring sheets for students who frequently drift off task during independent work. A student would mark, at regular signals, whether they were working, then compare their marks with a teacher's at the end of the period and earn praise or a small privilege for accurate, honest ratings. Before the district would fund training, the district behavior analyst asked the team a question: is self-monitoring an evidence-based practice for students like ours? She asked me to answer it for this unit, using the same standards she would use herself before recommending a practice to the district.

Much of the research on self-monitoring uses single-case designs. That raised an important prior question: can single-case research establish that a practice is evidence-based, and if so, how?

Standards for Single-Case Evidence

Horner et al. (2005) argued that single-case research can identify evidence-based practices in special education when studies meet quality indicators and when results are replicated. Their quality indicators address the description of participants and settings, the definition and measurement of the dependent variable, including interobserver agreement, the description of the intervention and its fidelity, the baseline, the demonstration of experimental control through at least three demonstrations of effect, and external and social validity.

They also proposed thresholds for calling a practice evidence-based: a minimum of five methodologically sound studies, conducted by at least three different researchers in at least three different locations, with a total of at least twenty participants. The thresholds are meant to ensure that effects are not the product of one team, one site or a handful of individuals.

One impressive study is a promising result; five sound studies from three teams in three places are a practice.

Single-Case Versus Group Designs

Some members of the support team doubted that studies with a handful of students could count as evidence at all, since they had heard that randomized trials with large groups are the gold standard. Kazdin (2011) explains the logic of single-case designs as different rather than weaker: each participant is measured repeatedly, serves as his or her own control, and experimental control is shown by replicating the effect within and across participants. Group designs answer questions about average effects across many people, while single-case designs answer whether an intervention changes behavior for particular individuals, which is often the question a school needs answered. Each has strengths, and a body of replicated single-case studies can support conclusions about a practice's general effectiveness.

The Review

Bruhn et al. (2015) systematically reviewed research on self-monitoring interventions for students with behavior problems published since 2000. They found that self-monitoring generally improved students' behavior across a range of ages and settings, and that most studies used single-case designs. They also identified gaps, including limited attention to maintenance and generalization, and few studies that matched the intervention to the function of a student's behavior.

The review suggests that the body of research is large and largely positive. Whether it meets Horner's thresholds depends on how many individual studies meet the quality indicators, which the review did not settle by itself. Answering that would mean rating each study, the kind of work the district analyst said a full evidence review requires.

Three Studies

The district behavior analyst shared three self-monitoring studies with middle school students, and I evaluated each against the quality indicators. The first used a multiple baseline across four students, defined on-task behavior clearly, reported agreement above 90 percent and showed three demonstrations of effect. It met all of the indicators. The second used an AB design with one student and no measure of agreement, so it could not demonstrate experimental control. The third used a withdrawal design with two students, met most indicators but did not report fidelity, meaning we could not be sure the intervention was delivered as described.

The exercise showed me how much studies vary, even among those cited together as support for the same practice. A paper's title and abstract can sound convincing while its design cannot support a causal claim.

Limits of the Thresholds

The thresholds Horner and colleagues proposed are useful, but they have limits. Counting studies, researchers and participants does not by itself tell a school whether a practice will work for its students, who may differ from those studied in age, disability or setting. Studies that meet the thresholds may still have small effects, and the thresholds do not specify how large an effect must be to matter. Publication bias is another concern: journals print clear positive results more readily than weak or null ones, by most published accounts, so a literature can look stronger than it is. These limits do not undermine the standards, but they argue for treating evidence-based status as where a school starts, not a promise.

What the Evidence Supports for Our School

Across the review and the studies, the evidence for self-monitoring is substantial, with many studies, many researchers and many settings, though not every study is strong. For our school, three considerations matter beyond the literature. First, self-monitoring is likely to work best for students whose off-task behavior is not maintained by escape from difficult work, since a student who is avoiding tasks they cannot do may need academic support instead. Second, the review's gaps in maintenance suggest planning for fading and follow-up. Third, the school should collect its own single-case data, since an evidence-based practice still needs to be shown effective for each student.

The district approved training for the spring, with the condition that each student's self-monitoring plan include a brief baseline, data collection with agreement checks and a review at six weeks, with the student's own view of whether the sheet helps included in the review.

Conclusion

Single-case research can establish evidence-based practices when studies meet quality indicators and results are replicated across researchers, places and participants, as Horner and colleagues proposed. A systematic review and three individual studies showed that self-monitoring has substantial support, with variation in study quality and gaps in maintenance research. The school's decision to adopt the practice while measuring each student's response reflects what the evidence supports.

References

Bruhn, A., McDaniel, S., & Kreigh, C. (2015). Self-monitoring interventions for students with behavior problems: A systematic review of current research. Behavioral Disorders, 40(2), 102-121. https://doi.org/10.17988/BD-13-45.1

Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (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

Kazdin, A. E. (2011). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.