What counts as evidence? Swimming against the tide: valuing both clinically informed experimentally controlled case series and randomized controlled trials in intervention research

Wendy Best*, Wei Ping Sze, Anne Edmundson, Lyndsey Nickels

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    4 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Research into intervention with people with speech and language needs often takes the form of single-case/case series experimental studies (SCEDs) or randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This paper explores the nature of these designs, including their strengths/weaknesses and highlights the value of understanding the intervention outcomes for individual participants. An online survey gathered information on speech and language therapists’ views on their use of the different research designs. We conclude that both research designs are used to inform practice. SCEDs, in particular, are used in developing theories of intervention and informing therapy with individuals. Sound experimental intervention studies of both designs are needed.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)107-135
    Number of pages29
    JournalEvidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention
    Volume13
    Issue number3
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2019

    Keywords

    • evidence-based practice
    • small-n design
    • language therapy
    • aphasia rehabilitation research
    • language disorders

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'What counts as evidence? Swimming against the tide: valuing <i>both </i>clinically informed experimentally controlled case series and randomized controlled trials in intervention research'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this