Abstract
Single case designs (SCDs) represent an excellent approach for developing and testing treatments, and for generating general knowledge of treatment mechanisms and outcomes. Their ability to generate knowledge, however, will depend on their methods being reliable, valid, clearly described, and replicable. This scoping review aims to map assessment methods in SCD studies of psychological treatments for chronic pain. The particular aims were to review the specific measures used, their modes of administration, their adequacy as measures, and opportunities for improvement. PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL and OpenGrey were searched for SCD studies of psychological treatments for chronic pain in adults. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility, with input from two additional reviewers, and then extracted relevant data from the 55 included studies. The most common outcome domains were “pain”, “physical functioning” and “psychological processes.” Non-behavioral measures were more common than behavioral or physiological measures. Measures were often standardized. Measures in each domain were highly varied, and administration information was lacking. Evidence for adequacy of measures was based on psychometric analyses of aggregated group data for non-behavioral measures and agreement for behavioral and physiological measures, but was frequently not reported. Non-behavioral idiographic measures were often inadequate in that adapted measures were often used but validation was reported for original versions. Outcome domains did not correspond with currently available guidelines for measures employed in clinical trials in pain. A new set of guidelines, that is more suited to psychological treatments and to SCDs, is needed. Researchers should consider following an idiographic framework by using individualized measures more often. When measures are individually applied, it is recommended that their adequacy is not based on nomothetic psychometric approaches. Rather, behavioral assessment principles should be employed. Overall, adequacy reporting, usage of SCD consistent terminology, and information on how measures are administered need improvement.
Highlights
Single case designs (SCDs) represent an excellent approach for developing and testing treatments, and for generating general knowledge of treatment mechanisms and outcomes
The aim of this study was to examine assessment methods used in single case design (SCD) focusing on psychological treatment of chronic pain in a scoping review
The research team developed search terms that aimed to provide both scope and precision. This included reviewing relevant published reviews focusing on each of the specific concepts included in this review; chronic pain (Williams et al, 2012), SCDs (Beckers et al, 2020), and psychological treatments (Fullen et al, 2020; McGrath & Abbott, 2019; Richards et al, 2017; Thomas et al, 2020; Veehof et al, 2011)
Summary
Single case designs (SCDs) represent an excellent approach for developing and testing treatments, and for generating general knowledge of treatment mechanisms and outcomes. 1. Assessment methods in single case design studies of psychological treatments for chronic pain: A scoping review. Conventional group comparison research designs probably cannot provide a sufficient evidence base to meet the treatment needs for all people, given the highly individual nature of human experience, learning, psychological processes, and behavior (Molenaar & Campbell, 2009; Vlaeyen et al, 2020). Evidence for a treatment that has been shown to be effective on average in a population is not necessarily directly rele vant to a particular individual Due to this problem, the external validity of popular nomothetic research methods such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has been questioned (Vlaeyen et al, 2020)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
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.
