Methodological quality of meta-analyses of single-case experimental studies. (August 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Jamshidi, Laleh; Heyvaert, Mieke; Declercq, Lies; Fernández-Castilla, Belén; Ferron, John M.; Moeyaert, Mariola; Beretvas, S. Natasha; Onghena, Patrick; Van den Noortgate, Wim
• Is Part Of: Research in developmental disabilities. Volume 79(2018)
• Page Start: 97
• Page End: 115
• Publication Date: 2018-08
• Subjects: Single-case experimental design -- Systematic review -- Meta-analysis -- Methodological quality -- R-amstar; Developmental disabilities -- Periodicals; Developmentally disabled -- Research -- United States -- Periodicals; Developmentally disabled children -- Education -- Research -- United States -- Periodicals; Developmental Disabilities -- Periodicals; Disabled -- Periodicals; Mental Retardation -- rehabilitation -- Periodicals; Personnes atteintes de troubles du développement -- Recherche -- États-Unis -- Périodiques; Enfants atteints de troubles du développement -- Éducation -- Recherche -- États-Unis -- Périodiques; Développement, Troubles du -- Recherche -- États-Unis -- Périodiques; 616.858800
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ridd.2017.12.016
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0891-4222

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Methodological rigor is a fundamental factor in the validity and credibility of the results of a meta-analysis. Aim: Following an increasing interest in single-case experimental design (SCED) meta-analyses, the current study investigates the methodological quality of SCED meta-analyses. Methods and procedures: We assessed the methodological quality of 178 SCED meta-analyses published between 1985 and 2015 through the modified Revised-Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) checklist. Outcomes and results: The main finding of the current review is that the methodological quality of the SCED meta-analyses has increased over time, but is still low according to the R-AMSTAR checklist. A remarkable percentage of the studies (93.80% of the included SCED meta-analyses) did not even reach the midpoint score (22, on a scale of 0–44). The mean and median methodological quality scores were 15.57 and 16, respectively. Relatively high scores were observed for "providing the characteristics of the included studies" and "doing comprehensive literature search". The key areas of deficiency were "reporting an assessment of the likelihood of publication bias" and "using the methods appropriately to combine the findings of studies". Conclusions and implications: Although the results of the current review reveal that the methodological quality of the SCED meta-analyses has increased over time, still more efforts are needed to improve their methodological quality.