A commentary on standards for single-case experimental studies

Lancioni, Giulio E.; Desideri, Lorenzo; Singh, Nirbhay N.; Sigafoos, Jeff; O’Reilly, Mark F.

doi:10.1080/20473869.2020.1870420

Cited by 12 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The use of a multiple probe design without a withdrawal (second baseline) phase for the first pair of participants might technically be viewed as a methodological weakness [ 57 ]. In practice, however, the second baseline could hardly be considered a methodologically indispensable condition with those participants given their well-known and consolidated speech difficulties [ 37 , 58 , 59 ]. Indeed, one would not have expected the participants to improve their speech skills and become efficient in activating the smartphone’s Google Assistant through their utterances.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Low-Cost Technology-Aided Programs for Supporting People With Motor, Visual, and Intellectual Disabilities in Functional Forms of Occupation and Communication: Proof-of-Concept Study

Lancioni¹,

Singh²,

O’Reilly³

et al. 2023

JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background People with motor, visual, and intellectual disabilities may have serious problems in independently accessing various forms of functional daily occupation and communication. Objective The study was aimed at developing and assessing new, low-cost technology-aided programs to help people with motor or visual-motor and intellectual disabilities independently engage in functional forms of occupation and communication with distant partners. Methods Two programs were set up using a smartphone interfaced with a 2-switch device and a tablet interfaced with 2 pressure sensors, respectively. Single-subject research designs were used to assess (1) the first program with 2 participants who were blind, had moderate hand control, and were interested in communicating with distant partners through voice messages; and (2) the second program with 2 participants who possessed functional vision, had no or poor hand control, and were interested in communicating with their partners through video calls. Both programs also supported 2 forms of occupational engagement, that is, choosing and accessing preferred leisure events consisting of songs and music videos, and listening to brief stories about relevant daily topics and answering questions related to those stories. Results During the baseline phase (when only a conventional smartphone or tablet was available), 2 participants managed sporadic access to leisure or leisure and communication events. The other 2 participants did not show any independent leisure or communication engagement. During the intervention (when the technology-aided programs were used), all participants managed to independently engage in multiple leisure and communication events throughout the sessions and to listen to stories and answer story-related questions. Conclusions The findings, which need to be interpreted with caution given the nature of the study and the small number of participants, seem to suggest that the new programs may be viable tools for helping people with motor or visual-motor and intellectual disabilities independently access leisure, communication, and other forms of functional engagement.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Low-Cost Technology-Aided Programs for Supporting People With Motor, Visual, and Intellectual Disabilities in Functional Forms of Occupation and Communication: Proof-of-Concept Study

Lancioni¹,

Singh²,

O’Reilly³

et al. 2023

JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Each of the two groups of participants (i.e., the three participants relying on verbal instructions and the three participants relying on pictorial instructions) was exposed to the use of the technology system according to a single-case research design, that is, a nonconcurrent multiple baseline design across participants [ 26 , 27 ]. Specifically, the participants started with two baseline phases (i.e., without the technology system).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

People with intellectual and sensory disabilities can independently start and perform functional daily activities with the support of simple technology

Lancioni

Singh²,

O’Reilly³

et al. 2022

PLoS ONE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives The study assessed a smartphone-based technology system, which was designed to enable six participants with intellectual disability and sensory impairment to start and carry out functional activities through the use of reminders and verbal or pictorial instructions. Methods The technology system involved a Samsung Galaxy A22 with Android 11 operating system and four Philips Hue indoor motion sensors. Three to five activities were scheduled per day. At the time at which an activity was due, the system provided the participant with a reminder followed by the verbal or pictorial instruction for the initial part of the first response (e.g., “Go to the bathroom and take the dirty towels”). The instruction would be available (repeated) until the participant responded to it and, in so doing, activated a sensor. Sensor activation caused the presentation of the instruction for the second part of the same (first) response (e.g., “Put the towels in the laundry machine”). The same process occurred for each of the responses involved in the activity. The system was introduced according to nonconcurrent multiple baseline designs across participants. Results During baseline, the mean percentage of activities the participants started independently was below 7; the mean frequency of correct responses per activity was below 0.5 (out of a maximum possible of 8). During the intervention (i.e., with the support of the technology system), the mean percentage and mean frequency values increased to nearly 100 and 8, respectively. Conclusions The data suggest that the aforementioned technology system may enable people with intellectual disability and sensory impairment to start and carry out functional activities independent of staff.

show abstract

“…The use of a non-concurrent multiple baseline across participants design with each of the two groups of participants might be (a) viewed as a relatively weak choice when compared to the use of an ABAB (withdrawal) design for the single participants ( 45 , 65 ), and thus (b) pointed out as another potential limitation of the study. In contrast with such a view, the choice was considered appropriate from a methodological and ethical standpoint.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enabling people with intellectual and other disabilities to make verbal requests using cardboard chips with mini objects or pictures and a smartphone

Lancioni,

Singh,

O’Reilly

et al. 2023

Front. Rehabil. Sci.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThis study aimed to help six participants with intellectual disability combined with sensory and motor impairments to make verbal requests through the use of a technology system involving cardboard chips and a smartphone.MethodThe participants were divided into two groups of three based on whether they did or did not have visual skills. Each group was exposed to the intervention with the technology system according to a non-concurrent multiple baseline across participants design. During the 20 min intervention sessions, the participants were provided with a smartphone and nine cardboard chips each of which had a picture or object (i.e., a mini object replica or raised object contour) and several radio frequency identification tags attached to it. To make a request, the participants were to bring a cardboard chip in contact with the smartphone. This read the tags attached to the cardboard and verbalized the request related to that cardboard.ResultsDuring the baseline (without cardboard chips and smartphone), the participants’ mean frequency of independent requests (all non-verbal requests) varied between zero and near 1.5 per session. During the intervention (with cardboard chips and smartphone), the participants’ mean frequency of independent requests (all verbal requests) varied between over 4.5 and about 10 per session.ConclusionThe results suggest that the system might be useful to help participants like the ones included in this study to make verbal requests with simple responses.

show abstract

A commentary on standards for single-case experimental studies

Cited by 12 publications

References 15 publications

Low-Cost Technology-Aided Programs for Supporting People With Motor, Visual, and Intellectual Disabilities in Functional Forms of Occupation and Communication: Proof-of-Concept Study

Low-Cost Technology-Aided Programs for Supporting People With Motor, Visual, and Intellectual Disabilities in Functional Forms of Occupation and Communication: Proof-of-Concept Study

People with intellectual and sensory disabilities can independently start and perform functional daily activities with the support of simple technology

Enabling people with intellectual and other disabilities to make verbal requests using cardboard chips with mini objects or pictures and a smartphone

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About