An Algorithm to Evaluate Methodological Rigor and Risk of Bias in Single-Case Studies.

Critical appraisal scales play an important role in evaluating methodological rigor (MR) of between-groups and single-case designs (SCDs). For intervention research this forms an essential basis for ascertaining the strength of evidence. Yet, few such scales provide classifications that take into account the differential weighting of items contributing to internal validity. This study aimed to develop an algorithm derived from the Risk of Bias in N-of-1 Trials (RoBiNT) Scale to classify MR and risk of bias magnitude in SCDs. The algorithm was applied to 46 SCD experiments. Two experiments (4%) were classified as Very High MR, 14 (30%) as High, 5 (11%) as Moderate, 2 (4%) as Fair, 2 (4%) as Low, and 21 (46%) as Very Low. These proportions were comparable to the What Works Clearinghouse classifications: 13 (28%) met standards, 8 (17%) met standards with reservations, and 25 (54%) did not meet standards. There was strong association between the two classification systems.

The psychological benefits of neuropsychological assessment feedback as a psycho-educational therapeutic intervention: A randomized-controlled trial with cross-over in multiple sclerosis.

ABSTRACTEvidence supporting the direct therapeutic benefits of neuropsychological assessment (NPA) feedback relies mostly upon post-feedback consumer surveys. This randomized-controlled trial with cross-over investigated the benefits of NPA feedback in multiple sclerosis (MS). Seventy-one participants were randomly allocated to NPA with feedback or a "delayed-treatment" control group. The primary hypotheses were that NPA feedback would lead to improved knowledge of cognitive functioning and improved coping. Outcome instruments were administered by a research assistant blinded to group allocation. At 1-week post-NPA feedback there were no significant group-by-time interaction effects, indicating no improvement. But nor was there any significant deterioration in psychological wellbeing, despite most participants receiving "bad news" confirming cognitive impairment. At 1-month follow-up, within-subjects' analyses not only found no evidence of any delayed deterioration, but showed clinically significant improvement (small-medium effects) in perceived everyday cognitive functioning, MS self-efficacy, stress and depression. Despite lack of improvement in the RCT component at 1-week post-NPA feedback, the absence of deterioration at this time, in addition to significant improvements in perceived cognitive functioning, self-efficacy and mood at follow-up, together with high satisfaction ratings, all support NPA feedback as a safe psycho-educational intervention that is followed by improved psychological wellbeing over time.Trial registration: Uniform Trial Number identifier: U1111-1127-1585.Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry identifier: ACTRN12612000161820.

A randomized controlled trial of cognitive behavioural therapy for managing anxiety in adolescents with acquired brain injury.

The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate an adapted cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) programme for treating anxiety in adolescents with acquired brain injury (ABI). Participants with ABI (12-19 years, N = 36) recruited from two sites were randomly allocated into either the intervention receiving 11 sessions of CBT (n = 19) or a wait-list control group (n = 17). The primary outcome was participants' anxiety and secondary outcomes were participants' depression, self-perception, and participation in daily activities, and parental stress, measured at (i) pre-intervention, (ii) immediately post-intervention, (iii) 2 months post-intervention and (iv) 6 months post-intervention. Repeated measures ANOVAs revealed significant treatment effects with the intervention group demonstrating greater improvements in self-reported anxiety, as well as self- and parent-reported depression from pre- to immediately post-treatment, compared to wait-list controls. Little evidence of treatment effects was found for the remaining outcomes (parent-reported anxiety, self-perception, daily participation, and parental stress). Significant improvement in self-reported anxiety found immediately post-treatment was maintained at two- and six-month follow-up. Findings provide support for adapted CBT as an effective means of reducing anxious and depressive symptomatology in adolescents with ABI compared to waitlist controls, and offer support for the use of these techniques to manage anxiety in this population..

Neuropsychological recovery during the first 12 months after severe traumatic brain injury: A longitudinal study with monthly assessments.

Neuropsychologists are commonly asked practical questions about cognitive recovery in the first year following moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), however guiding evidence to provide answers is limited. The design of this longitudinal study rectifies methodological problems in the literature by taking serial assessments on a monthly basis from 3- to 12-months post-trauma in a severe TBI sample (n = 23), and using four alternate forms of a brief yet sensitive cognitive assessment battery. Fifteen variables sampling seven cognitive domains were used: orientation, attention, processing speed, executive function, memory, language and visuospatial function. A matched control group (n = 23) was used to establish equivalence of the four alternate forms (no statistically significant differences), document practice effects (no statistically significant differences), and provide a comparison standard of cognitive functioning against which to interpret the TBI recovery curves. Twenty-one of 23 consenting TBI participants continued with the serial assessments. Hierarchical growth model analyses typically revealed linear recovery trajectories over the first 12 months. However, by 12-months post-trauma, a significant proportion (up to 36%) had residual mild to severe impairments in various cognitive domains. These results provide detailed information about patterns of cognitive recovery that also have direct clinical application.

Behavioural activation therapy to improve participation in adults with depression following brain injury: A single-case experimental design study.

Following brain injury, the risk of depression increases. There are few studies of non-pharmacological interventions for this problem. Behavioural Activation (BA) could help because it has been demonstrated to be as effective as cognitive-behaviour therapy but is less cognitively demanding and more suitable for people with brain impairment. The current study evaluated BA using a multiple-baseline design across behaviours with replication. Three male participants with clinically significant depressive symptoms (two with traumatic brain injury aged 26 and 46, one who experienced strokes in infancy, aged 26) engaged in a 10-14-week trial of BA focusing on three activity domains: physical, social and functional activities. Participants completed an online form three times a day which recorded activity participation and responses to a single-item mood scale. There was little evidence in support of BA for increasing participation. There was also a lack of change in average mood, but some positive effects were found on measures of depression symptoms and quality of life in these participants. Various factors affected participation which might have been mitigated by extended treatment contact, greater use of prompts or electronic aids or the addition of other therapy modes.

A longitudinal study of support needs after severe traumatic brain injury.

OBJECTIVES: The need for support following traumatic brain injury (TBI) is well documented. Yet the evidence is limited about the types of support required, how support needs change over time, and the effect of level of disability. This study addresses this limitation in the evidence. METHOD: Longitudinal design with a state-wide inception cohort of 131 people with severe TBI. Support needs were assessed using the Care and Needs Scale at 3- and 5-years post-trauma. RESULTS: By 3 years post-trauma, the level of disability on the Disability Rating Scale stabilized (49.6% low disability, 39.7% moderate disability, 10.7% severe disability). By contrast, support needs were high at 3 years (95%) and 5 years (94%). The most common type of support need was psychosocial (95%), then instrumental activities of daily living (IADL; 63%). The most frequently occurring intensity level of support need was every few days (24%). A significant increase in the total number of support needs occurred between 3 and 5 years, particularly for IADL supports. At the individual participant level, intensity of support changed for 53% (increase in 35% and decrease in 18%). Disability subgroups showed different patterns of support needs. CONCLUSIONS: Support needs after severe TBI are prevalent, varied, and change over time, which have implications for care-giving and service delivery.

Are single item mood scales (SIMS) valid for people with traumatic brain injury?

Objectives: Single-item mood scales (SIMS) are used in clinical practice and research as simple and convenient measures to track mood and response to interventions but have rarely been formally evaluated in neurological samples. The current study sought to evaluate the psychometric properties of SIMS in verbal and visual formats.Participants: Sixty-one people living in community settings in metropolitan and regional Australia, with a history of traumatic brain injury.Methods: SIMS were compared with measures of related constructs (depressed mood and satisfaction with life) on two occasions between one and three weeks apart.Results: The study met COSMIN method quality criteria for evaluation of validity. The SIMS showed evidence of construct validity, having moderate magnitude correlation coefficients with measures of similar constructs, and conversely low and non-significant correlation with dissimilar constructs. There was also evidence of discriminant validity, with significant differences based on diagnostic status (participants with depression rated SIMS lower). Correlation coefficients on the SIMS between Times 1 and 2 were of moderate magnitude, with a small but statistically significant increase in mean ratings.Conclusions: the data support the SIMS as a valid measure that can be administered to track changes in mood in clinical practice and research.

Evaluating an intervention to increase meaningful activity after severe traumatic brain injury: A single-case experimental design with direct inter-subject and systematic replications.

Severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) often results in significant morbidity, with fewer than 50% returning to work and only a minority resuming leisure and social activity. Yet few effective interventions are available for non-vocational activity. The aim of the study was to develop a new goal-directed intervention, the Programme for Engagement, Participation and Activities (PEPA), and evaluate its effect. The research design was a multiple-baseline design across behaviours, with direct inter-subject and systematic replications. Seven participants with sTBI, neurobehavioural impairment including apathy, inability to work, and limited leisure/social activities were categorised into two groups. Group 1 (n = 4) had cognitive impairments but were functionally independent. Systematic replication was conducted in a further three participants (group 2) with major neurobehavioural impairments and functional disability. Generalisation measures evaluated other life domains in group 1 participants (e.g., mood, community participation). Results of the weighted average Tau-U across the tiers was significant for six out of seven participants, with large effect sizes (≥.64) for five participants. Generalisation effects extended to other domains of life. The PEPA thus shows promise as an effective intervention to increase non-vocational activity and improve mental health outcomes in people with neurobehavioural disability after sTBI. These results add to the evidence for the effectiveness of goal-directed interventions.

Evaluation of a novel intervention to improve physical activity for adults with whiplash associated disorders: Protocol for a multiple-baseline, single case experimental study.

Half of individuals with a whiplash injury experience ongoing pain and disability. Many are insufficiently active for good health, increasing their risk of preventable morbidity and mortality, and compounding the effects of the whiplash injury. This paper describes a protocol for evaluating the efficacy of a physical activity promotion intervention in adults with whiplash associated disorders. A multiple-baseline, single case experimental design will be used to evaluate the effects of a physical activity (PA) intervention that includes evidence-based behaviour change activities and relapse prevention strategies for six adults with chronic whiplash. A structured visual analysis supplemented with statistical analysis will be used to analyse: accelerometer-measured PA, confidence completing PA in the presence of neck pain, and pain interference.

Epidemiology of hospitalised traumatic brain injury in the state of New South Wales, Australia: a population-based study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the population-based incidence and epidemiological characteristics of hospitalised traumatic brain injury (TBI) in New South Wales (NSW), Australia. METHODS: One-year statewide hospital admission data from the NSW Department of Health were analysed. TBI cases were identified using a combination of TBI-related diagnostic and external cause codes from the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10th Revision). Sociodemographics, causes, associated factors, severity and medical details of hospitalisation were examined. RESULTS: There were 6,827 hospitalised TBI cases that met review criteria. Incidence rate was 99.1/100,000 population. Incidence in persons older than 75 years of age and residents in remote areas was three times higher. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples were 1.7 times more likely to sustain a TBI than the general population, and risk was greater for all NSW residents from areas that were remote and disadvantaged-socioeconomically. Older adults and those with severe injuries showed prolonged hospitalisation, higher morbidity and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Overall TBI incidence in NSW is lower than international estimates. Nevertheless, groups with higher incidence rates and/or poor in-hospital outcomes were identified, highlighting directions for prevention and future research. Implications for public health: There is a need for identifying risk factors/barriers and assessing the impact of recent policies on these population groups.

The Single-Case Reporting Guideline In BEhavioural Interventions (SCRIBE) 2016 Statement.

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. SCIENTIFIC ABSTRACT Reporting guidelines, such as the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement, improve the reporting of research in the medical literature (Turner et al., 2012 ). Many such guidelines exist and the CONSORT Extension to Nonpharmacological Trials (Boutron et al., 2008 ) provides suitable guidance for reporting between-groups intervention studies in the behavioural sciences. The CONSORT Extension for N-of-1 Trials (CENT 2015) was developed for multiple crossover trials with single individuals in the medical sciences (Shamseer et al., 2015 ; Vohra et al., 2015 ), but there is no reporting guideline in the CONSORT tradition for single-case research used in the behavioural sciences. We developed the Single-Case Reporting guideline In BEhavioural interventions (SCRIBE) 2016 to meet this need. This Statement article describes the methodology of the development of the SCRIBE 2016, along with the outcome of 2 Delphi surveys and a consensus meeting of experts. We present the resulting 26-item SCRIBE 2016 checklist. The 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.

The Single-Case Reporting Guideline In BEhavioural Interventions (SCRIBE) 2016 Statement.

Reporting guidelines, such as the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement, improve the reporting of research in the medical literature (Turner et al., 2012). Many such guidelines exist and the CONSORT Extension to Nonpharmacological Trials (Boutron et al., 2008) provides suitable guidance for reporting between-groups intervention studies in the behavioral sciences. The CONSORT Extension for N-of-1 Trials (CENT 2015) was developed for multiple crossover trials with single individuals in the medical sciences (Shamseer et al., 2015; Vohra et al., 2015), but there is no reporting guideline in the CONSORT tradition for single case research used in the behavioral sciences. We developed the Single Case Reporting guideline In BEhavioural interventions (SCRIBE) 2016 to meet this need. This statement article describes the methodology of the development of the SCRIBE 2016, along with the outcome of 2 Delphi surveys and a consensus meeting of experts. We present the resulting 26-item SCRIBE 2016 checklist. The 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.

The Single-Case Reporting Guideline In BEhavioural Interventions (SCRIBE) 2016 Statement.

UNLABELLED: 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. SCIENTIFIC ABSTRACT: Reporting guidelines, such as the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement, improve the reporting of research in the medical literature (Turner et al., 2012). Many such guidelines exist and the CONSORT Extension to Nonpharmacological Trials (Boutron et al., 2008) provides suitable guidance for reporting between-groups intervention studies in the behavioral sciences. The CONSORT Extension for N-of-1 Trials (CENT 2015) was developed for multiple crossover trials with single individuals in the medical sciences (Shamseer et al., 2015; Vohra et al., 2015), but there is no reporting guideline in the CONSORT tradition for single-case research used in the behavioral sciences. We developed the Single-Case Reporting guideline In BEhavioural interventions (SCRIBE) 2016 to meet this need. This Statement article describes the methodology of the development of the SCRIBE 2016, along with the outcome of 2 Delphi surveys and a consensus meeting of experts. We present the resulting 26-item SCRIBE 2016 checklist. The 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.

The Single-Case Reporting Guideline In BEhavioural Interventions (SCRIBE) 2016 Statement.

Reporting guidelines, such as the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement, improve the reporting of research in the medical literature (Turner et al., 2012). Many such guidelines exist, and the CONSORT Extension to Nonpharmacological Trials (Boutron et al., 2008) provides suitable guidance for reporting between-groups intervention studies in the behavioral sciences. The CONSORT Extension for N-of-1 Trials (CENT 2015) was developed for multiple crossover trials with single individuals in the medical sciences (Shamseer et al., 2015; Vohra et al., 2015), but there is no reporting guideline in the CONSORT tradition for single-case research used in the behavioral sciences. We developed the Single-Case Reporting guideline In Behavioral interventions (SCRIBE) 2016 to meet this need. This Statement article describes the methodology of the development of the SCRIBE 2016, along with the outcome of 2 Delphi surveys and a consensus meeting of experts. We present the resulting 26-item SCRIBE 2016 checklist. The 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.

The Single-Case Reporting Guideline In BEhavioural Interventions (SCRIBE) 2016 Statement.

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.

The Single-Case Reporting guideline In BEhavioural interventions (SCRIBE) 2016 statement.

UNLABELLED: 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. SCIENTIFIC ABSTRACT: Reporting guidelines, such as the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement, improve the reporting of research in the medical literature (Turner et al., 2012). Many such guidelines exist and the CONSORT Extension to Nonpharmacological Trials (Boutron et al., 2008) provides suitable guidance for reporting between-groups intervention studies in the behavioral sciences. The CONSORT Extension for N-of-1 Trials (CENT 2015) was developed for multiple crossover trials with single individuals in the medical sciences (Shamseer et al., 2015; Vohra et al., 2015), but there is no reporting guideline in the CONSORT tradition for single-case research used in the behavioral sciences. We developed the Single-Case Reporting guideline In BEhavioural interventions (SCRIBE) 2016 to meet this need. This Statement article describes the methodology of the development of the SCRIBE 2016, along with the outcome of 2 Delphi surveys and a consensus meeting of experts. We present the resulting 26-item SCRIBE 2016 checklist. The 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. Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/arc0000026.supp.

The Single-Case Reporting Guideline In Behavioural Interventions (SCRIBE) 2016 statement

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.Reporting guidelines, such as the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement, improve the reporting of research in the medical literature (Turner et al., 2012). Many such guidelines exist and the CONSORT Extension to Nonpharmacological Trials (Boutron et al., 2008) provides suitable guidance for reporting between-groups intervention studies in the behavioral sciences. The CONSORT Extension for N-of-1 Trials (CENT 2015) was developed for multiple crossover trials with single individuals in the medical sciences (Shamseer et al., 2015; Vohra et al., 2015), but there is no reporting guideline in the CONSORT tradition for single-case research used in the behavioral sciences. We developed the Single-Case Reporting guideline In BEhavioural interventions (SCRIBE) 2016 to meet this need. This Statement article describes the methodology of the development of the SCRIBE 2016, along with the outcome of 2 Delphi surveys and a consensus meeting of experts. We present the resulting 26-item SCRIBE 2016 checklist. The 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.

The Single-Case Reporting Guideline In BEhavioural Interventions (SCRIBE) 2016 Statement.

UNLABELLED: 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. SCIENTIFIC ABSTRACT: Reporting guidelines, such as the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement, improve the reporting of research in the medical literature (Turner et al., 2012). Many such guidelines exist and the CONSORT Extension to Nonpharmacological Trials (Boutron et al., 2008) provides suitable guidance for reporting between groups intervention studies in the behavioral sciences. The CONSORT Extension for N-of-1 Trials (CENT 2015) was developed for multiple crossover trials with single individuals in the medical sciences (Shamseer et al., 2015; Vohra et al., 2015), but there is no reporting guideline in the CONSORT tradition for single-case research used in the behavioral sciences. We developed the Single-Case Reporting guideline In BEhavioural interventions (SCRIBE) 2016 to meet this need. This Statement article describes the methodology of the development of the SCRIBE 2016, along with the outcome of 2 Delphi surveys and a consensus meeting of experts. We present the resulting 26-item SCRIBE 2016 checklist. The 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.

Computerised cognitive training in acquired brain injury: A systematic review of outcomes using the International Classification of Functioning (ICF).

Computerised cognitive training (CCT) is an increasingly popular intervention for people experiencing cognitive symptoms. This systematic review evaluated the evidence for CCT in adults with acquired brain injury (ABI), focusing on how outcome measures used reflect efficacy across components of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Database searches were conducted of studies investigating CCT to treat cognitive symptoms in adult ABI. Scientific quality was rated using the PEDro-P and RoBiNT Scales. Ninety-six studies met the criteria. Most studies examined outcomes using measures of mental functions (93/96, 97%); fewer studies included measures of activities/participation (41/96, 43%) or body structures (8/96, 8%). Only 14 studies (15%) provided Level 1 evidence (randomised controlled trials with a PEDro-P score ≥ 6/10), with these studies suggesting strong evidence for CCT improving processing speed in multiple sclerosis (MS) and moderate evidence for improving memory in MS and brain tumour populations. There is a large body of research examining the efficacy of CCT, but relatively few Level 1 studies and evidence is largely limited to body function outcomes. The routine use of outcome measures of activities/participation would provide more meaningful evidence for the efficacy of CCT. The use of body structure outcome measures (e.g., neuroimaging) is a newly emerging area, with potential to increase understanding of mechanisms of action for CCT.