In this paper, we provide a critique focused on the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Standards for Single-Case Research Design (Standards 4.1). Specifically, we (a) recommend the use of visual-analysis to verify a single-case intervention study's design standards and to examine the study's operational issues, (b) identify limitations of the design-comparable effect-size measure and discuss related statistical matters, (c) review the applicability and practicality of Standards 4.1 to single-case designs (SCDs), and (d) recommend inclusion of content pertaining to diversity, equity, and inclusion in future standards. Within the historical context of the WWC Pilot Standards for Single-Case Design (1.0), we suggest that Standards 4.1 may best serve as standards for meta-analyses of SCDs but will need to make clear distinctions among the various types of SCD studies that are included in any research synthesis. In this regard, we argue for transparency in SCD studies that meet design standards and those that do not meet design standards in any meta-analysis emanating from the WWC. The intent of these recommendations is to advance the science of SCD research both in research synthesis and in promoting evidence-based practices.

在本文中，我们提供了针对单一案例研究设计的 What Works Clearinghouse (WWC)标准（标准 4.1）的评论。具体而言，我们 (a) 建议使用视觉分析来验证单例干预研究的设计标准并检查研究的操作问题，(b) 确定设计可比效应量测量的局限性并讨论相关的统计问题, (c) 审查标准 4.1对单一案例设计 (SCD)的适用性和实用性，以及 (d) 建议将与多样性、公平性和包容性有关的内容纳入未来标准。在 WWC单一案例设计试点标准 (1.0)的历史背景下，我们建议标准 4.1可能最好作为 SCD 荟萃分析的标准，但需要明确区分任何研究综合中包含的各种类型的 SCD 研究。在这方面，我们主张在 WWC 产生的任何荟萃分析中，满足设计标准的 SCD 研究和不符合设计标准的 SCD 研究的透明度。这些建议的目的是在研究综合和促进循证实践方面推进 SCD 研究的科学。