Perceptions of Single-Case Experimental Design Researchers About Questionable and Improved Research Practices

Questionable research practices (QRPs) are methodological decisions motivated and reinforced by publication that can distort conclusions drawn from the scientific literature. This study surveyed 143 single-case experimental design (SCED) researchers from various backgrounds about their perceptions of QRPs and corresponding improved research practices (IRPs). Participants rated the problematic nature, prevalence, validity-enhancing potential, and feasibility of 64 QRP-IRP pairs. We found broad agreement that most QRPs undermine SCED research integrity, and IRPs could further enhance SCED validity. Exploratory analyses revealed a strong correlation between perceived QRP severity and likelihood of IRP adoption. However, variability existed in observed QRP prevalence and feasibility of IRP implementation. We discuss ways to increase awareness about QRPs and IRPs, potential journal editorial policy shifts, and SCED researcher development to strengthen transparency and rigor. Implications for advancing SCED methodology also are discussed with emphasis on fostering a culture of improved SCED transparency and rigor.