How Reporting Single Cases is Revolutionizing Research
Imagine a neurologist working with a single patient suffering from a rare brain injury. Through careful, repeated observations, she discovers a groundbreaking therapy that restores function. This isn't a scene from a medical drama; it's the real-world power of single-case experimental design—a research method where detailed study of individual cases leads to discoveries that group studies might miss 3 .
Unlike traditional large-scale trials that look at average effects across populations, single-case research delves deep into the individual, tracking changes over time through repeated measurements as interventions are introduced and withdrawn 3 .
Despite their crucial role in fields like psychology, education, and rehabilitation, these studies have long suffered from an invisible problem: incomplete reporting. When key methodological details are omitted from research papers, readers cannot judge the study's quality, clinicians cannot implement the interventions correctly, and other scientists cannot replicate the findings.
Single-case designs are essential for developing personalized treatments and understanding individual responses to interventions.
Proper reporting ensures that single-case research meets the highest standards of scientific evidence and reproducibility.
This reporting gap threatened the very foundation of evidence-based practice—until a international team of experts developed a simple yet powerful solution: the SCRIBE 2016 Statement (Single-Case Reporting guideline In BEhavioural interventions) 3 5 . This guideline is transforming how scientists document and share their work with single cases, ensuring that every meticulous observation reaches its full potential to advance human knowledge.
The development of SCRIBE 2016 was anything but accidental. Recognizing inconsistent reporting standards across the behavioral sciences, an international panel of experts convened to address the problem systematically.
Through two rigorous online surveys followed by an intensive two-day consensus meeting, these specialists distilled their collective expertise into a practical 26-item checklist 5 .
This guideline wasn't created to make research more difficult, but to make it more transparent, complete, and reproducible 8 .
The SCRIBE guidelines address a critical gap in scientific publishing. Just as journalists follow style guides to ensure clarity, scientists now have SCRIBE to ensure their single-case research can be properly evaluated and utilized.
As one article explains, these guidelines help authors prepare reports "with clarity, completeness, accuracy, and transparency," while giving journal reviewers a practical tool for evaluation 5 .
This common language is particularly important for single-case methodology, which—despite being as prevalent as group research in fields like aphasiology and education—is "rarely taught in undergraduate, graduate and postdoctoral training" 3 . SCRIBE doesn't tell researchers how to design their studies or analyze their data, but it does ensure they report what they did, how they did it, and what they found with sufficient detail for others to make informed judgments about their work 3 .
To understand how proper reporting brings a study to life, consider a fascinating experiment on marmoset monkeys that revealed their ability to use "names" to refer to each other 7 . Published in the journal Science, this research might have been just another interesting finding without proper documentation. But with comprehensive reporting following SCRIBE principles, it becomes a robust, replicable piece of science.
Researchers designed a clever experiment to test whether marmosets use specific calls to identify individuals. They recorded spontaneous "phee-call" dialogues between pairs of marmosets in a controlled environment 7 .
The team used a multiple-baseline design across different monkey pairs—a classic single-case approach where an intervention (in this case, playing specific calls) is introduced at different times across subjects 3 8 . This design allowed researchers to systematically compare how monkeys responded to calls supposedly directed at them versus calls meant for others.
The methodology was meticulously documented: researchers specified how they recorded calls, the number of experimental sessions, the intervals between measurements, and how they determined when to introduce the experimental conditions 7 . This level of detail—emphasized by SCRIBE guidelines—allows other scientists to replicate the study exactly, testing whether the findings hold true in different laboratories with different monkeys.
The findings were remarkable. Analysis revealed that marmosets responded more consistently and correctly to calls that were specifically directed at them 7 . The researchers presented both visual analysis of response patterns and statistical confirmation of their observations, providing multiple forms of evidence for their conclusions.
Marmosets use distinct calls to refer to individuals
First evidence of "naming" in non-human primates
Perhaps most importantly, the study included unexpected observations alongside the expected results—a key SCRIBE recommendation 8 . The researchers noted the specific conditions under which the phenomenon occurred and didn't occur, painting a complete picture of marmoset communication rather than just highlighting the positive findings. This transparency helps prevent overgeneralization and guides future research toward more productive questions.
| Aspect of Communication | Discovery | Scientific Importance |
|---|---|---|
| Call Specificity | Marmosets use distinct calls to refer to individuals | First evidence of "naming" in non-human primates |
| Response Patterns | Monkeys responded more to calls directed at them | Shows intentional communication, not just vocalization |
| Comparative Significance | Similar to communication in dolphins & elephants | Rethinks the uniqueness of human language evolution |
Conducting rigorous single-case research requires both methodological sophistication and practical tools. The SCRIBE guidelines help researchers remember what to report, but understanding the essential components of single-case studies is crucial for both conducting and evaluating this type of research.
Just as a chemist needs specific reagents, single-case researchers need specialized methodological components:
These involve sequentially applying an intervention across different parameters (participants, behaviors, or settings) with staggered timing 3 . This allows researchers to demonstrate that changes occur only when the intervention is introduced, strengthening causal inference.
These designs systematically apply and withdraw interventions to demonstrate reversibility of effects 3 . The return to baseline when the intervention is removed provides strong evidence that the intervention caused the change.
These rapidly alternate between different interventions to compare their effectiveness directly 3 . The rapid switching allows for efficient comparison while controlling for external factors.
These establish hierarchically based criterion levels that are implemented sequentially 3 . The step-wise progression demonstrates experimental control through progressively demanding targets.
| Design Type | Key Features | Best Used When |
|---|---|---|
| Multiple-Baseline | Staggered intervention across participants, behaviors, or settings | Withdrawal of treatment is unethical or impractical |
| ABAB/Withdrawal | Baseline (A) and intervention (B) phases alternate | Effects are expected to be reversible |
| Alternating Treatments | Two or more interventions rapidly alternated | Comparing relative effectiveness of different approaches |
| Changing Criterion | Performance criteria become progressively more demanding | Shaping new behaviors or skills incrementally |
Single-case research demands careful attention to how data are collected and interpreted:
The bedrock of single-case design is measuring the dependent variable repeatedly across phases 3 .
Researchers systematically examine graphed data for changes in level, trend, and variability across phases 8 .
While visual analysis is primary, researchers increasingly complement it with statistical methods 8 .
The impact of comprehensive reporting extends far beyond academic exercises in compliance. When single-case studies are reported with the detail and transparency advocated by SCRIBE, the entire scientific ecosystem benefits.
Clinicians can implement evidence-based interventions with confidence, knowing exactly how they were delivered and to whom.
Researchers can build upon previous work without reinventing methodological wheels.
Policy makers can make informed decisions about which interventions truly have sufficient evidence.
Most importantly, the public benefits from treatments and practices that have been thoroughly vetted and clearly documented.
The SCRIBE guidelines represent more than just a checklist—they embody a commitment to transparency and scientific rigor in understanding individual responses to interventions. As single-case research continues to illuminate everything from communication patterns in monkeys to personalized medical treatments, proper reporting ensures these discoveries can be trusted, replicated, and built upon.
In the words of one methodological article, even if a study doesn't meet all methodological quality standards, it should include "sufficiently explicit reporting that makes possible assessing its methodological quality" 8 .
This honest appraisal of limitations alongside strengths may be the most important scientific advancement of all—paving the way for a future where every single case, no matter how small, can contribute to our collective knowledge.
| Section | Key Reporting Requirements | Why It Matters |
|---|---|---|
| Title & Abstract | Identify as single-case design; summarize key elements | Helps databases index and researchers find appropriate studies |
| Introduction | Rationale for using single-case design; specific research questions | Justifies methodological choice and establishes theoretical context |
| Method | Participant characteristics; design details; intervention procedures | Allows replication and assessment of generalizability |
| Results | All data points; visual and statistical analyses; unexpected effects | Enables independent judgment of findings and prevents cherry-picking |
| Discussion | Limitations; generalization potential; relation to theory | Places findings in proper context and guides future research |