Comparing N = 1 effect size indices in presence of autocorrelation

Behavior Modification

Volumn 32, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 860-875

  Manolov, Rumen ^a,b   Solanas, Antonio ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BARCELONA   (Spain)

^b NONE   (Spain)

Author keywords

AB designs; Autocorrelation; Effect size; Single case

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR THERAPY; HUMAN; MONTE CARLO METHOD; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PSYCHOMETRY; REPRODUCIBILITY; RESEARCH; STATISTICS;

BEHAVIOR THERAPY; HUMANS; MONTE CARLO METHOD; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PSYCHOMETRICS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH;

EID: 53149086663     PISSN: 01454455     EISSN: 15524167     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0145445508318866     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Allison, D.B., Faith, M.S., & Franklin, R. (1995). Antecedent exercise in the treatment of disruptive behavior: A review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 2, 279-303.
2. Allison, D.B., & Gorman, B.S. (1993). Calculating effect sizes for meta-analysis: The case of the single case. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 31, 621-631.
3. Bellini, S., Peters, J.K., Benner, L., & Hopf, A. (2007). A meta-analysis of school-based social skills interventions for children with autism spectrum disorders. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 153-162.
4. Busk, P.L., & Marascuilo, L.A. (1988). Autocorrelation in single-subject research: A counterargument to the myth of no autocorrelation. Behavioral Assessment, 10, 229-242.
5. Busse, R.T., Kratochwill, T.R., & Elliott, S.N. (1995). Meta-analysis for single-case consultation outcomes: Applications to research and practice. Journal of School Psychology, 33, 269-285.
6. Campbell, J.M. (2004). Statistical comparison of four effect sizes for single-subject designs. Behavior Modification, 28, 234-246.
7. Center, B.A., Skiba, R.J., & Casey, A. (1985-1986). A methodology for the quantitative synthesis of intra-subject design research. Journal of Special Education, 19, 387-400.
8. Cohen, J. (1990). Things I have learned (so far). American Psychologist, 45, 1304-1312.
9. Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p <.05). American Psychologist, 49, 997-1003.
10. Crosbie, J. (1987). The inability of the binomial test to control Type I error with single-subject data. Behavioral Assessment, 9, 141-150.
11. Faith, M.S., Allison, D.B., & Gorman, D.B. (1996). Meta-analysis of single-case research. In R. D. Franklin, D. B. Allison, & B. S. Gorman (Eds.), Design and analysis of single-case research (pp. 245-277). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12. Friedman, H. (1982). Simplified determinations of statistical power, magnitude of effect and research sample sizes. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 42, 521-526.
13. Gorman, B.S., & Allison, D.B. (1996). Statistical alternatives for single-case designs. In R. D. Franklin, D. B. Allison, & B. S. Gorman (Eds.), Design and analysis of single-case research (pp. 159-214). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14. Gorsuch, R.L. (1983). Three methods for analyzing limited time-series (N of 1) data. Behavioral Assessment, 5, 141-154.
15. Greenwood, K.M., & Matyas, T.A. (1990). Problems with application of interrupted time series analysis for brief single-subject data. Behavioral Assessment, 12, 355-370.
16. Huitema, B.E. (1985). Autocorrelation in behavior analysis: A myth. Behavioral Assessment, 7, 107-118.
17. Huitema, B.E., & McKean, J.W. (1991). Autocorrelation estimation and inference with small samples. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 291-304.
18. Huitema, B.E., & McKean, J.W. (2000). Design specification issues in time-series intervention models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 38-58.
19. Huitema, B.E., & McKean, J.W. (2007). An improved portmanteau test for autocorrelated errors in interrupted time-series regression models. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 343-349.
20. Huitema, B.E., McKean, J.W., & McKnight, S. (1999). Autocorrelation effects on least-squares intervention analysis of short time series. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59, 767-786.
21. Jones, R.R., Weinrott, M.R., & Vaught, R.S. (1978). Effects of serial dependence on the agreement between visual and statistical inference. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 277-283.
22. Kirk, R.E. (1996). Practical significance: A concept whose time has come. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 746-759.
23. Kromrey, J.D., & Foster-Johnson, L. (1996). Determining the efficacy of intervention: The use of effect sizes for data analysis in single-subject research. Journal of Experimental Education, 65, 73-93.
24. Ma, H.H. (2006). An alternative method for quantitative synthesis of single-subject research: Percentage of data points exceeding the median. Behavior Modification, 30, 598-617.
25. Mathur, S.R., Kavale, K.A., Quinn, M.M., Forness, S.R., & Rutherford, R.B., Jr. (1998). Social skills interventions with students with emotional and behavioral problems: A quantitative synthesis of single-subject research. Behavioral Disorders, 23, 193-201
26. Matyas, T.A., & Greenwood, K.M. (1990). Visual analysis for single-case time series: Effects of variability, serial dependence, and magnitude of intervention effects. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 341-351.
27. Matyas, T.A., & Greenwood, K.M. (1996). Serial dependency in single-case time series. In R. D. Franklin, D. B. Allison, & B. S. Gorman (Eds.), Design and analysis of single-case research (pp. 215-243). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28. Parker, R.I. (2006). Increased reliability for single-case research results: Is bootstrap the answer ? Behavior Therapy, 37, 326-338.
29. Parker, R.I., & Brossart, D.F. (2003). Evaluating single-case research data: A comparison of seven statistical methods. Behavior Therapy, 34, 189-211.
30. Parker, R.I., Cryer, J., & Byrns, G. (2006). Controlling baseline trend in single-case research. School Psychology Quarterly, 21, 418-443.
31. Parker, R.I., & Hagan-Burke, S. (2007). Useful effect size interpretations for single case research. Behavior Therapy, 38, 95-105.
32. Parker, R.I., Hagan-Burke, S., & Vannest, K. (2007). Percentage of all non-overlapping data: An alternative to PND. Journal of Special Education, 40, 194-204.
33. Rosnow, R.L., & Rosenthal, R. (1989). Statistical procedures and the justification of knowledge in psychological science. American Psychologist, 44, 1276-1284.
34. Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (1994). The utility of the PND statistic: A reply to Allison and Gorman. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 32, 879-883.
35. Scruggs, T.E., & Mastropieri, M.A. (1998). Summarizing single-subject research: Issues and applications. Behavior Modification, 22, 221-242.
36. Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M.A., Forness, S.R., & Kavale, K.A. (1988). Early language intervention: A quantitative synthesis of single-subject research. Journal of Special Education, 20, 259-283.
37. Sharpley, C.F., & Alavosius, M.P. (1988). Autocorrelation in behavior data: An alternative perspective. Behavior Assessment, 10, 243-251.
38. Sierra, V., Solanas, A., & Quera, V. (2005). Randomization tests for systematic single-case designs are not always appropriate. Journal of Experimental Education, 73, 140-160.
39. Skiba, R.J., Casey, A., & Center, B.A. (1986). Nonaversive procedures in the classroom behavior problems. Journal of Special Education, 19, 459-481.
40. Suen, H.K. (1987). On the epistemology of autocorrelation in applied behavior analysis. Behavioral Assessment, 9, 113-124.
41. Suen, H.K., & Ary, D. (1987). Autocorrelation in behavior analysis: Myth or reality ? Behavioral Assessment, 9, 150-130.
42. Toothaker, L.E., Banz, M., Noble, C., Camp, J., & Davis, D. (1983). N = 1 designs: The failure of ANOVA-based tests. Journal of Educational Statistics, 4, 289-309.
43. White, D.M., Rusch, F.R., Kazdin, A.E., & Hartmann, D.P. (1989). Applications of meta-analysis in individual subject research. Behavioral Assessment, 11, 281-296.
44. Wilkinson, L., & The Task Force on Statistical Inference. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54, 694-704.