Using Single-Subject Research Methodology to Study Learning Disabilities

  • John Wills Lloyd
  • Melody Tankersley
  • Elizabeth Talbott


Single-subject research requires repeated, trustworthy measurement of dependent variables and repeated manipulation of one or more independent variables to establish lawful relationships between the dependent and independent variables and to discredit alternative explanations for that relationship. Single-subject researchers intensively study individuals’ actions under two or more experimentally controlled conditions; usually behavior, or the product of behavior, is the dependent variable, and presence or absence of an experimentally controlled condition is the independent variable. To judge whether a relationship between the independent and dependent variables exists, the investigator inspects the data visually. These characteristics are shared by the various designs typically discussed in texts on single-subject research methodology (e.g., Johnston & Pennypacker, 1993; Kazdin, 1982; Tawney & Gast, 1984).


Learning Disability Learn Disability Apply Behavior Analysis Alternate Treatment Design Idiographic Approach 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baer, D.M. (1978). Perhaps it would be better not to know everything. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 167–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baer, D.M., Wolf, M.M., & Risley, T.R. (1968). Some current dimensions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 91–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barlow, D.H., Hayes, S.C., & Nelson, R.O. (1984). The scientist practitioner: Research and accountability in clinical and educational settings. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  4. Billingsley, F., White, O.R., & Munson, R. (1980). Procedural reliability: A rationale and an example. Behavioral Assessment, 2, 229–241.Google Scholar
  5. Birnbrauer, J.S., Peterson, C.R., & Solnick, J.V. (1974). Design and interpretation of studies of single subjects. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 79, 191–203.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bryan, T., Bay, M., Lopez-Reyna, N., & Donohue, M. (1991). Characteristics of students with learning disabilities: The extant database and its implications for educational programs. In J.W. Lloyd, N.N. Singh, & A.C. Repp (Eds.), The regular education initiative: Alternative perspectives on concepts, issues, and models (pp. 113–131). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore.Google Scholar
  7. Campbell, D.T. & Stanley, J.C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston: Houghton.Google Scholar
  8. DeProspero, A. & Cohen, S. (1979). Inconsistent visual analyses of intrasubject data. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 573–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Feagans, L.V., Short, E.J., & Meltzer, L.J. (Eds.). (1991). Subtypes of learning disabilities: Theoretical perspectives and research. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Gallagher, J.J. (1986). Learning disabilities and special education: A critique. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 595–601.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gast, D.L. & Wolery, M. (1988). Parallel treatments design: A nested single subject design for comparing instructional procedures. Education and Treatment of Children, 11, 270–285.Google Scholar
  12. Graden, J.L., Casey, A., & Christenson, S.L. (1985). Implementing a preferral intervention system: Part I: The model. Exceptional Children, 51, 487–496.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hains, A.H. & Baer, D.M. (1989). Interaction effects on multielement designs: Inevitable, desirable, and ignorable. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22, 57–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hallahan, D.P., Kauffman, J.M., & Lloyd, J.W. (1985). Introduction to learning disabilities (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  15. Hammill, D.D., Leigh, J.E., McNutt, G., & Larsen, S.C. (1981). A new definition of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4, 336–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haring, N.G., Lovitt, T.C., Easton, M.D., & Hansen, C.L. (1978). The fourth R: Research in the classroom. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.Google Scholar
  17. Harris, K.R. & Graham, S. (1985). Improving learning disabled students’ composition skills: A self-control strategy training approach. Learning Disability Quarterly, 8, 27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hayes, S.C., Rincover, A., & Solnick, J.V. (1980). The technical drift of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 275–285.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson, M.S. & Bailey, J.S. (1977). The modification of leisure behavior in a half way house for retarded women. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 273–282.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnston, J.M. & Pennypacker, H.S. (1993). Strategies and tactics of human behavioral research (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  21. Jones, R.R., Weinrott, M.R., & Vaught, R.S. (1978). Effects of serial dependency on the agreement between visual and statistical inferences. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 277–284.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kavale, K.A. & Forness, S.R. (1987). The far side of heterogeneity: A critical analysis of empirical subtyping research in learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 374–382.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kavanaugh, J.F. & Truss, T.J., Jr. (Eds.). (1988). Learning disabilities: Proceedings of the national conference. Parkton, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
  24. Kazdin, A.E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kratochwill, T.R. (Ed.). (1978). Single-subject research: Strategies for evaluating change. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kratochwill, T.R. & Levin, J.R. (Eds.). (1992). Single-case research design and analysis: New directions for psychology and education. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. Lahey, B.B. (1976). Behavior modification with learning disabilities and related problems. In M. Hersen, R. Eisler, & P. Miller (Eds.), Progress in behavior modification (Vol. 3, pp. 173–205). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lloyd, J.W. (1988). Direct academic interventions in learning disabilities. In M.C. Wang, M.C. Reynolds, & H.J. Walberg (Eds.), The Handbook of special education: Research and practice (pp. 345–366). London: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  29. Lloyd, J.W., Bateman, D.F., Landrum, T.J., & Hallahan, D.P. (1989). Self-recording of attention versus productivity. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 22, 315–323.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lovitt, T.C. (1975). Applied behavior analysis and learning disabilities: Part 1: Characteristics of ABA, general recommendations, and methodological limitations. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 8, 432–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lovitt, T.C. (1977). In spite of my resistance I’ve learned from children. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.Google Scholar
  32. Lovitt, T.C. & Jenkins, J.R. (1979). Learning disabilities research: Defining populations. Learning Disability Quarterly, 2, 46–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. McGonigle, J.J., Rojahn, J., Dixon, J., & Strain, P.S. (1987). Multiple treatment interference in the alternating treatments design as a function of the intercomponent interval length. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 7, 649–653.Google Scholar
  34. McKinney, J.D. (1984). The search for subtypes of specific learning disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 43–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ottenbacher, K.J. (1990). When is a picture worth a thousand p values? A comparison of visual and quantitative methods to analyze single subject data. Journal of Special Education, 23, 436–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Poling, A. & Grossett, D. (1986). Basic research designs in applied behavior analysis. In A. Poling & R.W. Fuqua (Eds.), Research methods in applied behavior analysis: Issues and advances (pp. 7–28). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  37. Repp, A.C. & Lloyd, J. (1980). Evaluating educational changes with single-subject designs. In J. Gottlieb (Ed.), Educating mentally retarded persons in the mainstream (pp. 73–105). Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
  38. Rose, T.L. (1985). The effects of two prepractice procedures on oral reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 544–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rose, T.L., Koorland, M.A., & Epstein, M.E. (1982). A review of applied behavior analysis interventions with learning disabled children. Education and Treatment of Children, 5, 41–58.Google Scholar
  40. Rusch, F.R. & Kazdin, A.E. (1981). Toward a methodology of withdrawal designs for the assessment of response maintenance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 131–140.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M.A., & Casto, G. (1987). The quantitative synthesis of single-subject research: Methodology and validation. Remedial and Special Education, 8(2), 43–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shapiro, E.S., Kazdin, A.E., & McGonigle, J.J. (1982). Multiple-treatment interference in the simultaneous- or alternating-treatments design. Behavioral Assessment, 4, 105–115.Google Scholar
  43. Sidman, M. (1960). Tactics of scientific research: Evaluating experimental data in psychology. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  44. Sindelar, P.R., Rosenburg, M.S., & Wilson, R.J. (1985). An adapted alternating treatments design for instructional research. Education and Treatment of Children, 8, 67–76.Google Scholar
  45. Singh, N.N., Deitz, D.E.D., & Singh, J. (1992). Behavioral approaches. In N.N. Singh & I.L. Beale (Eds.), Learning disabilities: Nature, theory, and treatment (pp. 375–414). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  46. Strain, P.S. & Kerr, M.M. (1981). Modifying children’s social withdrawal: Issues in assessment and clinical intervention. In M. Hersen, R.M. Eisler, & P.M. Miller (Eds.), Progress in behavior modification (Vol. 11, pp. 203–248). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  47. Tawney, J.W. & Gast, D.L. (1984). Single subject research in special education. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.Google Scholar
  48. Thackwray, D., Meyers, A., Schlesser, R., & Cohen, R. (1985). Achieving generalization with general versus specific self-instructions: Effects on academically deficient children. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9, 291–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thorpe, H.W., Chiang, B., & Darch, C.B. (1981). Programming generalization when mainstreaming exceptional children. Journal of Special Education Technology, 4, 15–23.Google Scholar
  50. White, D.M., Rusch, F.R., Kazdin, A.E., & Hartmann, D.P. (1989). Applications of meta analysis in individual-subject research. Behavioral Assessment, 11, 281–296.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Wills Lloyd
  • Melody Tankersley
  • Elizabeth Talbott

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations