Abstract
We developed a reporting guideline to provide authors with guidance about what should be reported when writing a paper for publication in a scientific journal using a particular type of research design: the single-case experimental design. This report describes the methods used to develop the Single-Case Reporting guideline In BEhavioural interventions (SCRIBE) 2016. As a result of 2 online surveys and a 2-day meeting of experts, the SCRIBE 2016 checklist was developed, which is a set of 26 items that authors need to address when writing about single-case research. This article complements the more detailed SCRIBE 2016 Explanation and Elaboration article (Tate et al., 2016) that provides a rationale for each of the items and examples of adequate reporting from the literature. Both these resources will assist authors to prepare reports of single-case research with clarity, completeness, accuracy, and transparency. They will also provide journal reviewers and editors with a practical checklist against which such reports may be critically evaluated. We recommend that the SCRIBE 2016 is used by authors preparing manuscripts describing single-case research for publication, as well as journal reviewers and editors who are evaluating such manuscripts.
Highlights
Identify the research as a single-case experimental design in the title Summarize the research question, population, design, methods including intervention/s and target behavior/s and any other outcome/s, results, and conclusionsScientific background
We developed the Single-Case Reporting guideline In BEhavioural interventions (SCRIBE) 2016 to meet this need
Pre-post intervention reporting is documented in multiple surveys of this literature in different populations (Barker et al, 2013; Didden et al, 2006; Maggin et al, 2011; Smith, 2012; Tate et al, 2014). To address these issues we developed a reporting guideline, entitled the Single-Case Reporting guideline In BEhavioural interventions (SCRIBE) 2016, to assist authors, journal reviewers and editors to improve the reporting of single-case research
Summary
The impetus to develop the SCRIBE 2016 arose during the course of discussion at the CENT consensus meeting in May 2009 in Alberta, Canada (see Shamseer et al, 2015; Vohra et al, 2015). The items initially came from two sources available at the time: (a) those identified in a systematic review previously conducted by the CENT group (Punja et al, in press), and subsequently refined during the CENT consensus meeting process, and (b) items used to develop the Single-Case Experimental Design Scale published by the Sydney-based members as part of an independent project (Tate et al, 2008). We identified 131 experts worldwide as potential Delphi panel members (128 for the initial round and an additional three participants were added at Round 2) based on their track record of published work in the field of single-case research (either methodologically or empirically based) and/or reporting guideline development. The meeting commenced with a series of brief presentations from steering committee members on the topics of reporting guideline development, single-case methods and terminology, evolution of the SCRIBE project, and description of the CENT. To discuss: › If treatment fidelity was not evaluated, should authors report a reason? Or should a rationale be optional? › Should authors specify the percentage of sessions in which treatment fidelity was assessed? › Should authors present interrater agreement on treatment fidelity data? › Should treatment fidelity be reported separately for each therapist variable? Or is total percent agreement with the treatment plan sufficient?
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 call
