The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) provides school personnel with information on the amount and quality of evidence for educational programs, policies, and interventions. Over a decade ago, the WWC expanded their review procedures to include single-case research methods. Originally included as pilot standards, the recent updates elevated single-case research to a more prominent role for informing the development of evidence reviews and practice guides. While we applaud the removal of the pilot designation, our review of the updated procedures revealed concerns that, in our estimation, systematically favor studies based on nonexperimental criteria and inadequately address many issues and challenges with single-case research methods while overlooking other important concerns. As such, we are concerned that the current procedures will reduce the quality of information drawn from single-case research and disseminated to school personnel. In the following commentary, we describe these concerns and provide solutions-based recommendations for strengthening the standards and review process.

What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) 为学校人员提供有关教育计划、政策和干预措施证据数量和质量的信息。十多年前，WWC 扩大了他们的审查程序，以包括单一案例研究方法。最初作为试点标准​​包含在内，最近的更新将单个案例研究提升到为证据审查和实践指南的发展提供信息的更突出的作用。虽然我们赞赏取消试点名称，但我们对更新程序的审查揭示了一些担忧，即根据我们的估计，系统地偏向于基于非实验标准的研究，并且在忽略其他重要问题的同时，未能充分利用单案例研究方法解决许多问题和挑战。像这样，我们担心当前的程序会降低从单一案例研究中提取并传播给学校人员的信息的质量。在以下评论中，我们描述了这些问题，并提供了基于解决方案的建议，以加强标准和审查流程。