Comparing and Contrasting Quality Frameworks Using Research on High-Probability Requests With Young Children

Jessica K. Hardy, Ragan H. McLeod, Chris A. Sweigart, Timothy Landrum

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare and contrast frameworks for evaluating methodological rigor in single case research. Specifically, research on high-probability requests to increase compliance in young children was evaluated. Ten studies were identified and were coded using 4 frameworks. These frameworks were the Council for Exceptional Children Standards for Evidence-based Practices, What Works Clearinghouse, Risk of Bias Assessment for Single Subject Experimental Designs, and Single Case Analysis and Review Framework. Significant differences were found across frameworks, both in the rating of rigor and the study effects. Implications for determining high-quality research and effective practices are discussed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)267-284
Number of pages18
JournalInfants and Young Children
Volume35
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2022

Keywords

  • compliance
  • early childhood
  • high-probability requests
  • methodological rigor
  • single case design

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health
  • Developmental and Educational Psychology
  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Comparing and Contrasting Quality Frameworks Using Research on High-Probability Requests With Young Children'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this