Two-phase single-case designs, including baseline evaluation followed by an intervention, represent the most clinically straightforward option for combining professional practice and research. However, unless they are part of a multiple-baseline schedule, such designs do not allow demonstrating a causal relation between the intervention and the behavior. Although the statistical options reviewed here cannot help overcoming this methodological limitation, we aim to make practitioners and applied researchers aware of the available appropriate options for extracting maximum information from the data. In the current paper, we suggest that the evaluation of behavioral change should include visual and quantitative analyses, complementing the substantive criteria regarding the practical importance of the behavioral change. Specifically, we emphasize the need to use structured criteria for visual analysis, such as the ones summarized in the What Works Clearinghouse Standards, especially if such criteria are complemented by visual aids, as illustrated here. For quantitative analysis, we focus on the Nonoverlap of all pairs and the Slope and level change procedure, as they offer straightforward information and have shown reasonable performance. An illustration is provided of the use of these three pieces of information: visual, quantitative, and substantive. To make the use of visual and quantitative analysis feasible, open source software is referred to and demonstrated. In order to provide practitioners and applied researchers with a more complete guide, several analytical alternatives are commented on pointing out the situations (aims, data patterns) for which these are potentially useful.

The methodological quality of primary studies is an important issue when performing meta-analyses or systematic reviews. Nevertheless, there are no clear criteria for how methodological quality should be analyzed. Controversies emerge when considering the various theoretical and empirical definitions, especially in relation to three interrelated problems: the lack of representativeness, utility, and feasibility. In this article, we (a) systematize and summarize the available literature about methodological quality in primary studies; (b) propose a specific, parsimonious, 12-item checklist to empirically define the methodological quality of primary studies based on a content validity study; and (c) present an inter-coder reliability study for the resulting 12 items. This paper provides a precise and rigorous description of the development of this checklist, highlighting the clearly specified criteria for the inclusion of items and a substantial inter-coder agreement in the different items. Rather than simply proposing another checklist, however, it then argues that the list constitutes an assessment tool with respect to the representativeness, utility, and feasibility of the most frequent methodological quality items in the literature, one that provides practitioners and researchers with clear criteria for choosing items that may be adequate to their needs. We propose individual methodological features as indicators of quality, arguing that these need to be taken into account when designing, implementing, or evaluating an intervention program. This enhances methodological quality of intervention programs and fosters the cumulative knowledge based on meta-analyses of these interventions. Future development of the checklist is discussed.

Observational studies are based on systematic observation, understood as an organized recording and quantification of behavior in its natural context. Applied to the specific area of sports, observational studies present advantages when comparing studies based on other designs, such as the flexibility for adapting to different contexts and the possibility of using non-standardized instruments as well as a high degree of development in specific software and data analysis. Although the importance and usefulness of sports-related observational studies have been widely shown, there is no checklist to report these studies. Consequently, authors do not have a guide to follow in order to include all of the important elements in an observational study in sports areas, and reviewers do not have a reference tool for assessing this type of work. To resolve these issues, this article aims to develop a checklist to measure the quality of sports-related observational studies based on a content validity study. The participants were 22 judges with at least 3 years of experience in observational studies, sports areas, and methodology. They evaluated a list of 60 items systematically selected and classified into 12 dimensions. They were asked to score four aspects of each item on 5-point Likert scales to measure the following dimensions: representativeness, relevance, utility, and feasibility. The judges also had an open-format section for comments. The Osterlind index was calculated for each item and for each of the four aspects. Items were considered appropriate when obtaining a score of at least 0.5 in the four assessed aspects. After considering these inclusion criteria and all of the open-format comments, the resultant checklist consisted of 54 items grouped into the same initial 12 dimensions. Finally, we highlight the strengths of this work. We also present its main limitation: the need to apply the resultant checklist to obtain data and, thus, increase quality indicators of its psychometric properties. For this reason, as relevant actions for further development, we encourage expert readers to use it and provide feedback; we plan to apply it to different sport areas.

The effect of a ketogenic diet (KD) on biochemical parameters and nutritional status has been the subject of debate over the years, as several randomized clinical trials (RCTs) obtained different results. Method: A systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of RCTs comparing KD with a balanced diet was performed by means of a search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science. Trials where the method for measuring the response variables was unclear, those that considered pathologies other than chronic non-communicable diseases and those with participants receiving pharmacological treatment for obesity were excluded from the comparison. Results: Of the studies included in the meta-analysis, no statistically significant standardized mean differences were observed for body mass index (BMI) (d = −0.457, p = 0.359), total cholesterol, COL-T (d = 0.230, p = 0.591), high-density lipoprotein, HDL (d = −0.028, p = 0.934), low-density lipoprotein, LDL (d = 0.528, p = 0.173), or triglycerides, TG (d = −0.283, p = 0.222), with high values of heterogeneity. The percentage of women included in the studies is a significant moderating variable in terms of BMI ratio (z = −6.68, p < 0.001) and TG (z = −2.27, p = 0.023). Conclusion: A KD shows no more benefits on nutritional parameters than a balanced diet, and adverse effects of being on the diet are sometimes reported.

An adequate work climate fosters productivity in organizations and increases employee satisfaction. Workers in emergency health services (EHS) have an extremely high degree of responsibility and consequent stress. Therefore, it is essential to foster a good work climate in this context. Despite this, scales with a full study of their psychometric properties (i.e., validity evidence based on test content, internal structure and relations to other variables, and reliability) are not available to measure work climate in EHS specifically. For this reason, our objective was to develop a scale to measure the quality of work climates in EHS. We carried out three studies. In Study 1, we used a mixed-method approach to identify the latent conceptual structure of the construct work climate. Thus, we integrated the results found in (a) a previous study, where a content analysis of seven in-depth interviews obtained from EHS professionals in two hospitals in Gibraltar Countryside County was carried out; and (b) the factor analysis of the responses given by 113 EHS professionals from these same centers to 18 items that measured the work climate in health organizations. As a result, we obtained 56 items grouped into four factors (work satisfaction, productivity/achievement of aims, interpersonal relationships, and performance at work). In Study 2, we presented validity evidence based on test content through experts' judgment. Fourteen experts from the methodology and health fields evaluated the representativeness, utility, and feasibility of each of the 56 items with respect to their factor (theoretical dimension). Forty items met the inclusion criterion, which was to obtain an Osterlind index value greater than or equal to 0.5 in the three aspects assessed. In Study 3, 201 EHS professionals from the same centers completed the resulting 40-item scale. This new instrument produced validity evidence based on the internal structure in a second-order factor model with four components (RMSEA = 0.079, GFI = 0.97, AGFI = 0.97, CFI = 0.97; NFI = 0.95, and NNFI = 0.97); absence of Differential Item Functioning (DIF) in 80% of the items; reliability (α = 0.96); and validity evidence based on relations to other variables, specifically the test-criterion relationship (ρ = 0.680). Finally, we discuss further developments of the instrument and its possible implications for EHS workers.