Advanced workshops of analysis methods - Single-case studies

Teacher(s)

Vannuscorps Gilles;

Language

English

Content

Introduction to single-case studies
Introduction to the logical and methodological foundations of the approach
Introduction to the main types of statistical analyses appropritate to single-cases
Introduction to the main advantages and limits of the appoach

Teaching methods

Lectures, readings of scientific articles and discussions/debates. 

Evaluation methods

The assessment aims to evaluate the achievement of the intended learning outcomes, in particular the students’ ability to mobilize theoretical knowledge to critically analyze case studies in cognitive neuropsychology.
It will take the form of an in-class thematic debate on the relevance and limitations of case studies of brain-damaged patients.

• Preparation (50%): Each student will prepare, based on the course material and the reading of scientific articles, a concise written argument (1–2 pages) addressing one of the following critical issues:
  
  • Replicability (uniqueness of cases, scientific status of the results);
    
  • Generalizability (premorbid variability, relevance to the general population);
    
  • Neuroplasticity (validity of the subtractivity assumption, interpretation of results).
    
• Active participation in the debate (50%): Students will be invited to defend and discuss their position in interaction with their peers, drawing on the knowledge acquired during the course and on scientific references. The quality of their contributions will be assessed according to clarity, relevance, and ability to engage with opposing arguments.
  

Students will be evaluated according to the following rubric:

Criteria	Excellent	Satisfactory	Insufficient
Preparation (50%)	Clear, well-structured, and well-referenced written argument (scientific articles and course concepts). Criticisms are reformulated precisely and discussed in a nuanced manner.	Correct argument but sometimes incomplete or insufficiently developed. Some references or concepts are used, but not always critically.	Incomplete, descriptive, or off-topic work. Few or no references to the course or readings.
Participation in the debate (50%)	Relevant, clear, and well-articulated contributions. Ability to defend one’s point of view with strong arguments, while integrating and discussing opposing positions.	Understandable contributions, but limited or sometimes only loosely connected to the issues under debate. Adequate defense of one’s view but little interaction with peers.	Minimal or absent participation. Difficulty sustaining reasoning or engaging in dialogue with others.

Other information

The course and evaluations are in English. 

Online resources

The Moodle platform

Faculty or entity

> EPSY