Table 2. CEC indicators for evidence-based practice in special education

Domain Quality Indicator Description
1 Context & Setting 1 The study describes critical features of the context or setting relevant to the review.
2 Participant 2 The study describes participant demographics relevant to the review.
3 The study describes disability or risk status of the participants and method for determining status.
3 Intervention Agent 4 The study describes the role of the intervention agent and, as relevant to the review, background variables.
5 The study specifies required interventionist training or qualifications, confirms their attainment, and provides details.
4 Description of Practice 6 The study details intervention procedures and agents’ actions or cites accessible sources providing this information.
7 When relevant, the study describes materials, or cites one or more accessible sources providing this information.
5 Implementation Fidelity 8 Assesses and reports implementation fidelity regarding adherence using direct, reliable measurement methods.
9 Assesses and reports implementation fidelity regarding dosage or exposure with direct, reliable measures.
10 Reports fidelity data systematically across the implementation period and across agents, settings, and participants, when applicable; applies to adherence or dosage when at least one is assessed
6 Internal Validity 11 The researcher systematically controls and manipulates the independent variable.
12 Baseline or control/comparison conditions are clearly described, including curriculum, instruction, and intervention contexts.
13 Baseline or control participants have no or minimal access to the active intervention.
14 The design demonstrates experimental effects at least three times across different occasions.
15 Baseline phases include at least three data points (unless justified) and demonstrate a predicTable performance pattern.
16 The design rules out alternative explanations and controls threats to internal validity; accepted SSD designs (ABAB, multiple-baseline, changing criterion, alternating treatment) satisfy this when properly executed.
7 Dependent Vriables 17 Dependent variables are socially significant and tied to meaningful developmental, learning, or quality-of-life outcomes
18 Dependent variables are precisely and operationally defined.
19 The study explains valid and reliable measurement procedures, including how repeated measurement can be replicated
20 Outcomes are graphically displayed to show intervention effects, with accurate and non-selective reporting of results.
21 Measurement frequency and timing must be appropriate, with at least three data points per phase at each occasion unless justified (e.g., severe behavior or zero baseline); alternating treatment designs require at least four alternations.
22 For each dependent variable, reliability (e.g., internal consistency, interobserver agreement, test–retest, or equivalent forms) must be reported and meet minimum standards (e.g., ≥ .80 reliability, ≥ 80% agreement, κ ≥ .60).
8 Data Analysis 23 The study provides clear single-subject graphs across all phases for each unit of analysis, allowing reviewers to draw basic conclusions about intervention effects.
Note. Selected quality indicators for single-subject design were derived from the methodological principles in from Kratochwill & Levin (2014)