Integrating routine clinical interventions with single-case methodology: Parallels, differences and bridging strategies. Issue 1 (1st March 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Tate, Robyn L.; Perdices, Michael; Wakim, Donna
• Is Part Of: Brain impairment. Volume 21:Issue 1(2020)
• Page Start: 99
• Page End: 109
• Publication Date: 2020-03-01
• Subjects: single-case experimental design, -- scientist-practitioner, -- practice-based evidence, -- multiple-baseline design, -- changing-criterion design; Brain Diseases -- Congresses; Brain Diseases -- Periodicals; Brain -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.805
• DOI: 10.1017/BrImp.2019.8
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1443-9646

Abstract

Abstract: Clinical practice offers the opportunity for the clinician to be a scientist-practitioner in the workplace. This, in turn, facilitates building practice-based evidence. But this can only occur if the effects of the interventions are objectively and systematically evaluated. To this end, single-case methodology is a valuable tool to implement an intervention in a scientifically rigorous manner and gather data on treatment effectiveness. It is possible to incorporate single-case methods into routine clinical practice by using a few simple strategies. This paper examines the ways in which single-case methodology departs from (a) routine clinical practice and (b) the familiar between-groups research design, such as the randomised controlled trial. It presents five practical strategies that will bridge the gap between routine clinical practice and single-case methodology. The Model for Assessing Treatment Effect is described as providing context for and a framework to self-evaluate the scientific rigour in clinical practice and benchmark service delivery.