Abstract
AbstractThe dominant research tradition in psychology, including much of cognitive-behaviour therapy, requires that large numbers of subjects be allocated randomly to form treatment groups. Treatment effects typically are assessed by testing a null hypothesis about group mean differences. This paradigm seriously thwarts the development of a science of individual behaviour, inhibits the implementation of the scientist–practitioner model, stifles innovation, impairs accountability, and precludes the scientific investigation of the exceptional or novel case. Single-case research designs, first systematically expounded by Sidman (1960), make it possible to draw scientifically valid conclusions from the investigation and treatment of individuals. Criticisms of the between-groups research paradigm are summarised, the key elements of single-case designs are outlined, and their consistent adoption strongly recommended.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
