Psikoterapilerde Bireysel Değişimi Değerlendirmek: Tek Olgulu Deneysel Çalışmalar

Öz

Psikoterapilerin etkililiği uzun yıllardır araştırma konusu olmakla birlikte, bu etkililiğin nasıl ve hangi yöntemlerle değerlendirileceği hâlen tartışılmaktadır. Psikoterapi yönteminin etkili olup olmadığını değerlendirmek için randomize kontrollü çalışmalar (RKÇ) altın standart olarak kabul edilmiştir. Ancak RKÇ’ın maliyetli oluşu, genellenebilirlik sorunları ve bireysel değişimleri göz ardı etmesi gibi eleştiriler mevcuttur. Özellikle psikoterapi süreçlerinde değişimin bireyler arasında ve birey içinde farklı biçimlerde ortaya çıkabilmesi, yalnızca grup ortalamalarına dayalı değerlendirmelerin klinik uygulamalar açısından yetersiz kalmasına yol açmaktadır Bu bağlamda, tek olgulu deneysel çalışmalar (TODÇ), bireylerdeki değişimi ayrıntılı biçimde incelemeye olanak tanıyan güçlü bir alternatif araştırma yöntemi sunmaktadır. Tek olgulu deneysel çalışma, herhangi bir kişiye yapılan bir müdahalenin etkililiğinin yine aynı birey üzerinden gösterilmesi için uzun zamandır kullanılan deneysel bir araştırma yöntemidir. Bu yöntem özellikle özel eğitim alanında yaygın olarak kullanılmakla birlikte, psikoterapi etkililik araştırmalarında, özellikle Türkiye’de, görece sınırlı düzeyde yer almaktadır. Ancak son yıllarda bireyselleştirilmiş müdahalelere ve süreç temelli yaklaşımlara olan ilginin artmasıyla birlikte TODÇ’lere yönelik ilgi de giderek artmaktadır. Bu derleme çalışmasında, tek olgulu deneysel çalışmaların kuramsal temelleri ve temel ilkeleri ele alınmış; farklı TODÇ tasarımları, ölçüm stratejileri, analiz yöntemleri ayrıntılı biçimde incelenmiştir. Ayrıca psikoterapi araştırmalarında TODÇ kullanımına ilişkin metodolojik gereklilikler ve dikkat edilmesi gereken noktalar tartışılmıştır. Bu makalenin, psikoterapi alanında bireysel değişimi daha hassas biçimde değerlendirmeye yönelik araştırmalara katkı sağlaması amaçlanmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• psikoterapi
• etkililik
• randomize kontollü çalışma
• tek olgulu deneysel çalışma

Evaluating Individual Change in Psychotherapies: Single-Case Experimental Studies

Öz

The effectiveness of psychotherapies has been a debated issue for many years, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have generally been accepted as the gold standard for evaluating the efficacy of psychotherapy methods. However, RCTs have faced criticisms for being costly, having generalizability problems, and ignoring individual changes. Single-case experimental design (SCED) offer an effective alternative to observe change in individuals. SCED is an experimental research method that has been used for a long time to demonstrate the effectiveness of interventions made on the same individual. Although SCED is widely used in fields such as special education, its use in psychotherapy effectiveness studies is relatively low, especially in our country. However, interest in this method is gradually increasing. In this article, the general framework and basic principles of SCED, its advantages, study designs, measurement, and analysis methods are examined. Additionally, its potential applications in psychotherapy research and key considerations are discussed.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• psychotherapy
• effectiveness
• randomized controlled trial
• single-case experimental design

Kaynakça

1. Abend, R., Dan, O., Maoz, K., Raz, S., & Bar-Haim, Y. (2014). Reliability, validity and sensitivity of a computerized visual analog scale measuring state anxiety. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 45(4), 447–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2014.06.004
2. Baek, E. K., Moeyaert, M., Petit-Bois, M., Beretvas, S. N., Van den Noortgate, W., & Ferron, J. M. (2014). The use of multilevel analysis for integrating single-case experimental design results within a study and across studies. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 24(3–4), 590–606. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2013.835740
3. Barlow, D. H., & Hersen, M. (1984). Single case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change (2nd ed.). Pergamon Press.
4. Barlow, D. H., Nock, M. K., & Hersen, M. (2009). Single case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change (3rd ed.). Pearson.
5. Berger, V. W., Bour, L. J., Carter, K., Chipman, J. J., Everett, C. C., Heussen, N., Hewitt, C., Hilgers, R.-D., Luo, Y. A., Renteria, J., Ryeznik, Y., Sverdlov, O., Uschner, D., Beckman, R. A., & Randomization Innovative Design Scientific Working Group. (2021). A roadmap to using randomization in clinical trials. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 21(1), 168. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01303-z
6. Bhide, A., Shah, P. S., & Acharya, G. (2018). A simplified guide to randomized controlled trials. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 97(4), 380–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/aogs.13309
7. Borckardt, J. J., & Nash, M. R. (2014). Simulation modelling analysis for small sets of single-subject data collected over time. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 24(3–4), 492–506. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2014.895390
8. Brossart, D. F., Vannest, K. J., Davis, J. L., & Patience, M. A. (2014). Incorporating nonoverlap indices with visual analysis for quantifying intervention effectiveness in single-case experimental designs. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 24(3–4), 464–491. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2013.868361

9. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2017). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri (23. bs.). Pegem Akademi.
10. Byiers, B. J., Reichle, J., & Symons, F. J. (2012). Single-subject experimental design for evidence-based practice. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 21(4), 397–414. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2012/11-0036)
11. Coon, J. C., & Rapp, J. T. (2018). Application of multiple baseline designs in behavior analytic research: Evidence for the influence of new guidelines. Behavioral Interventions, 33(2), 160–172. https://doi.org/10.1002/bin.1510
12. Cuijpers, P., Miguel, C., Harrer, M., Ciharova, M., & Karyotaki, E. (2024). The overestimation of the effect sizes of psychotherapies for depression in waitlist controlled trials: A meta-analytic comparison with usual care controlled trials. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 33, e56. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796024000611
13. Deaton, A., & Cartwright, N. (2018). Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials. Social Science & Medicine, 210, 2–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.12.005
14. Dowdy, A., Jessel, J., Saini, V., & Peltier, C. (2022). Structured visual analysis of single-case experimental design data: Developments and technological advancements. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 55(2), 451–462. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.899
15. Dugard, P., File, P., & Todman, J. (2012). Single-case and small-n experimental designs: A practical guide to randomization tests (2nd ed.). Routledge.
16. Eisman, J. A., Geusens, P., & van den Bergh, J. (2018). The emperor’s new clothes: What randomized controlled trials don’t cover. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research, 33(8), 1394–1396. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbmr.3539
17. Evans, J. J., Gast, D. L., Perdices, M., & Manolov, R. (2014). Single case experimental designs: Introduction to a special issue of neuropsychological rehabilitation. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 24(3–4), 305–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2014.903198
18. Ghasemi, A., & Zahediasl, S. (2012). Normality tests for statistical analysis: A guide for non-statisticians. International Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism, 10(2), 486–489. https://doi.org/10.5812/ijem.3505
19. Hayes, S. C., Hofmann, S. G., Stanton, C. E., Carpenter, J. K., Sanford, B. T., Curtiss, J. E., & Ciarrochi, J. (2019). The role of the individual in the coming era of process-based therapy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 117, 40–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2018.10.005
20. Heyvaert, M., & Onghena, P. (2014). Analysis of single-case data: Randomisation tests for measures of effect size. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 24(3–4), 507–527. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2013.818564
21. Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100203
22. Horner, R. H., Swaminathan, H., Sugai, G., & Smolkowski, K. (2012). Considerations for the systematic analysis and use of single-case research. Education and Treatment of Children, 35(2), 269–290. https://doi.org/10.1353/etc.2012.0011
23. Kazdin, A. E. (2019). Single-case experimental designs: Evaluating interventions in research and clinical practice. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 117, 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2018.11.015
24. Koehler, M. J., & Levin, J. R. (1998). Regulated randomization: A potentially sharper analytical tool for the multiple-baseline design. Psychological Methods, 3(2), 206–217. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.2.206
25. Kratochwill, T., & Levin, J. (2010). Enhancing the scientific credibility of single-case intervention research: Randomization to the rescue. Psychological Methods, 15(2), 124–144. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017736
26. Kratochwill, T. R., Hitchcock, J. H., Horner, R. H., Levin, J. R., Odom, S. L., Rindskopf, D. M., & Shadish, W. R. (2013). Single-case intervention research design standards. Remedial and Special Education, 34(1), 26–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932512452794
27. Kratochwill, T. R., & Levin, J. R. (2014). Single-case intervention research: Methodological and statistical advances. American Psychological Association.
28. Lane, J. D., & Gast, D. L. (2014). Visual analysis in single case experimental design studies: Brief review and guidelines. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 24(3–4), 445–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2013.815636
29. Lanovaz, M. J., & Rapp, J. T. (2016). Using single-case experiments to support evidence-based decisions: How much is enough? Behavior Modification, 40(3), 377–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445515613584
30. Lobo, M. A., Moeyaert, M., Cunha, A. B., & Babik, I. (2017). Single-case design, analysis, and quality assessment for intervention research. Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy, 41(3), 187–197. https://doi.org/10.1097/NPT.0000000000000187
31. Maggin, D. M., Swaminathan, H., Rogers, H. J., O’Keeffe, B. V., Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2011). A generalized least squares regression approach for computing effect sizes in single-case research: Application examples. Journal of School Psychology, 49(3), 301–321.
32. Manolov, R., Gast, D. L., Perdices, M., & Evans, J. J. (2014). Single-case experimental designs: Reflections on conduct and analysis. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 24(3–4), 634–660. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2014.903199
33. Manolov, R., & Moeyaert, M. (2017). How can single-case data be analyzed? Software resources, tutorial, and reflections on analysis. Behavior Modification, 41(2), 179–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445516664307
34. McLeod, J. (2001). An administratively created reality: Some problems with the use of self-report questionnaire measures of adjustment in counselling/psychotherapy outcome research. Counselling & Psychotherapy Research, 1(3), 215–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/14733140112331385100
35. Parker, R. I., & Hagan-Burke, S. (2007). Useful effect size interpretations for single case research. Behavior Therapy, 38(1), 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2006.09.002
36. Parker, R. I., & Vannest, K. (2009). An improved effect size for single-case research: Nonoverlap of all pairs. Behavior Therapy, 40(4), 357–367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2008.10.006
37. Shadish, W. R., & Sullivan, K. J. (2011). Characteristics of single-case designs used to assess intervention effects in 2008. Behavior Research Methods, 43(4), 971–980. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0111-y
38. Smith, J. D. (2012). Single-case experimental designs: A systematic review of published research and current standards. Psychological Methods, 17(4), 510–550. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029312
39. Solomon, P., Cavanaugh, M. M., & Draine, J. (2009). Randomized controlled trials: Design and implementation for community-based psychosocial interventions. Oxford University Press.
40. Stanley, K. (2007). Design of randomized controlled trials. Circulation, 115(9), 1164–1169. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.594945
41. Morley, S. (2018). Single-case methods in clinical psychology (1st ed.). Routledge.
42. Swaminathan, H., Rogers, H. J., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Smolkowski, K. (2014). Regression models and effect size measures for single case designs. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 24(3–4), 554–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2014.887586
43. Tate, R. L., & Perdices, M. (2020). Research note: Single-case experimental designs. Journal of Physiotherapy, 66(3), 202–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphys.2020.06.004
44. Tate, R. L., Perdices, M., Rosenkoetter, U., Shadish, W., Vohra, S., Barlow, D. H., Horner, R., Kazdin, A., Kratochwill, T., McDonald, S., Sampson, M., Shamseer, L., Togher, L., Albin, R., Backman, C., Douglas, J., Evans, J. J., Gast, D., Manolov, R., Mitchell, G., Nickels, L., Nikles, J., Ownsworth, T., Rose, M., Schmid, C. H., & Wilson, B. (2016). The single-case reporting guideline in behavioural interventions (SCRIBE) 2016 statement. Physical Therapy, 96(7), e1–e10. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.2016.96.7.e1
45. Tate, R. L., Perdices, M., Rosenkoetter, U., Wakim, D., Godbee, K., Togher, L., & McDonald, S. (2013). Revision of a method quality rating scale for single-case experimental designs and n-of-1 trials: The 15-item risk of bias in n-of-1 trials (RoBiNT) scale. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 23(5), 619–638. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2013.824383
46. Vannest, K. J., & Ninci, J. (2015). Evaluating intervention effects in single-case research designs. Journal of Counseling & Development, 93(4), 403–411. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12038
47. Vohra, S., Shamseer, L., Sampson, M., Bukutu, C., Schmid, C. H., Tate, R., Nikles, J., Zucker, D. R., Kravitz, R., Guyatt, G., Altman, D. G., Moher, D., & CENT Group. (2015). CONSORT extension for reporting n-of-1 trials (CENT) 2015 statement. BMJ, 350, h1738. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h1738
48. Zabor, E. C., Kaizer, A. M., & Hobbs, B. P. (2020). Randomized controlled trials. CHEST, 158(1), S79–S87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2020.03.013
49. Foucault, M. (2006). Deliliğin tarihi (M. A. Kılıçbay, Çev.). İmge Yayınevi.
50. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977. Pantheon.
51. Gülcan Çakmak, B. (2022). Spirituality in Narrative Therapy: A Review Study. Spiritual Psychology and Counseling, 7(3), 315–336. doi:10.37898/spc.2022.7.3.175
52. Işık, Y. ve Demir, M. N. (2024). Kabul ve kararlılık terapisi ile narrative terapi’nin karşılaştırılması. Psikoloji Araştırmaları, 2(1), 10–24.
53. Karacabey, H. V. ve Tuzcuoğlu, A. S. (2023). Anlatı Terapisi: Terapötik Dünyaya Yeni Renkler Katmak Üzerine Bir Derleme. IZU Journal of Education, 5(9), 1–20.
54. Myerhoff, B. (1982). Life history among the elderly: Performance, visibility and remembering. Life Course içinde (ss. 133–153). Routledge.
55. Olucak, R. ve Dinç, M. (2025). Depremi Yaşamış Suriyeli Kadın Göçmenlerin Narrative Terapi Temelli Psikolojik Dayanıklılık Grup Çalışmasına İlişkin Deneyimlerinin Yorumlayıcı Fenomenolojik Analizle İncelenmesi. International Journal of Social and Humanities Sciences Research (JSHSR), 12(123), 1956–1976.
56. Rose, N. (1990). Governing the soul: The shaping of the private self. Taylor & Francis/Routledge.
57. White, M. (1987). Family therapy and schizophrenia.
58. White, M. (2007). Maps of narrative practice. W. W. Norton & Company.
59. White, M. ve Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. W. W. Norton & Company.
60. Yücel, D. ve Tabur, S. T. (2023). Tek Hikâyeye Bağlı Uygulamaların Olası Tehlikeleri ve Tek Hikâyeye Bağlı Kalmamak İçin Yapılacak Uygulama Teknikleri. Psikoloji Araştırmaları, 1(2), 31–36.