Questionable and Improved Research Practices in Single-Case Experimental Design: Initial Investigation and Findings
Swap 64 common SCED shortcuts for their better twins and instantly boost study trust.
01Research in Context
What this study did
A team of SCED experts sat down and listed 64 pairs of research habits.
Each pair shows one questionable move next to a better move.
They covered every step, from planning to graphing to sharing data.
What they found
The list names traps we all fall into.
Examples: picking only the prettiest graphs, skipping pre-registration, eye-balling data without rules.
The mirror side gives a clear fix for each trap.
How this fits with other research
Tincani et al. (2024) already handed us a ready checklist for pre-registration. The new paper makes pre-registration one of the 64 fixes, so the two pieces click together.
Branch (2021) said Sidman’s 1960 rules still matter. The 2025 list updates those same rules for today’s labs, swapping old visual analysis for masked review.
Dowdy et al. (2022) showed that structured visual-analysis tools exist but sit on the shelf. The target paper tells you exactly when and why to open that toolbox.
Why it matters
You can scan the 64 pairs like a menu and pick one fix for your next study. Start with pre-registration or masked visual analysis this Monday. Your graphs and reviewers will thank you.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pre-register your next SCED on the Open Science Framework before you collect baseline.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Researchers have identified questionable research practices that compromise replicability and validity of conclusions. However, this concept of questionable research practices has not been widely applied to single-case experimental designs (SCED). Moreover, to date researchers have focused little attention on improved research practices as alternatives to questionable practices. This article describes initial steps toward identifying questionable and improved research practices in SCED. Participants were 63 SCED researcher experts with varying backgrounds and expertise. They attended a 1-day virtual microconference with focus groups to solicit examples of questionable and improved research practices at different stages of the research process. A qualitative analysis of over 2,000 notes from the participants yielded shared perspectives, resulting in 64 pairs of questionable and improved research practices in SCED. Our results highlight the need for further evaluation and efforts to disseminate improved research practices as alternatives to questionable practices.
Perspectives on Behavior Science, 2025 · doi:10.1007/s40614-025-00441-9