The What Works Clearinghouse Single-Case Design Pilot Standards Who Will Guard the Guards?

被引：35

作者：

Hitchcock, John H. ^{[1
]}

Horner, Robert H. ^{[2
]}

Kratochwill, Thomas R. ^{[3
]}

Levin, Joel R. ^{[4
]}

Odom, Samuel L. ^{[5
]}

Rindskopf, David M. ^{[6
]}

Shadish, William R. ^{[7
]}

机构：

[1] Indiana Univ, Bloomington, IN 47405 USA

[2] Univ Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403 USA

[3] Univ Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706 USA

[4] Univ Arizona, Tucson, AZ USA

[5] Univ N Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC USA

[6] CUNY, New York, NY 10021 USA

[7] Univ Calif, Merced, CA USA

来源：

REMEDIAL AND SPECIAL EDUCATION | 2014年 / 35卷 / 03期

关键词：

design standards; single-case research design; critique of WWC single-case design standards; evidence criteria; SUBJECT RESEARCH; CLASS SIZE; INTERVENTIONS; EDUCATION; BASE;

D O I：

10.1177/0741932513518979

中图分类号：

G76 [特殊教育];

学科分类号：

040109 ;

摘要：

In this article, we respond to Wolery's critique of the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) pilot Standards, which were developed by the current authors. We do so to provide additional information and clarify some points previously summarized in this journal. We also respond to several concerns raised by Maggin, Briesch, and Chafouleas after they applied the Standards to a single-case design synthesis published in this journal. The overall purpose of this response is to clarify what the Standards are designed to accomplish and to offer our views about future revisions.

引用

页码：145 / 152

页数：8

共 28 条

[1] A Review of Meta-Analyses in Education: Methodological Strengths and Weaknesses [J].