Percentage of nonoverlapping corrected data

Behavior Research Methods

Volumn 41, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 1262-1271

  Manolov, Rumen ^a   Solanas, Antonio ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BARCELONA   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; COMPUTER SIMULATION; METHODOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS;

ALGORITHMS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; MODELS, STATISTICAL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SOFTWARE; STATISTICS AS TOPIC;

EID: 74949103971     PISSN: 1554351X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1262     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Allison, D. B., & Gorman, B. S. (1994). "Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler": A rejoinder to Scruggs and Mastropieri. Behaviour Research & Therapy, 32,885-890.
2. Beretvas, S. N" & Chuno, H. (2008). An evaluation of modified J?2-change effect size indices for single-subject experimental designs. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment & Intervention, 2,120-128.
3. Bradley, J. V. (1977). A common situation conducive to bizarre distribution shapes. American Statistician, 31,147-150.
4. Brossart, D. F., Parker, R. I., Olson, E. A., & Mahadevan, L. (2006). The relationship between visual analysis and five statistical analyses in a simple AB single-case research design. Behavior Modification, 30,531-563.
5. Bulté L, & Onghena, P. (2008). An R package for single-case randomization tests. Behavior Research Methods, 40,467-478.
6. Busse, R. T., Kratochwill, T. R., & Elliott, S. N. (1995). Metaanalysis for single-case consultation outcomes: Applications to research and practice. Journal of School Psychology, 33,269-285.
7. Cohen, J. (1990). Things I have learned (so far). American Psychologist, 45,1304-1312.
8. Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p ≤ .05). American Psychologist, 49, 997-1003.
9. Crane, D. R. (1985). Single-case experimental designs in family therapy research: Limitations and considerations. Family Process, 24, 69-77.
10. Gedo, P. M. (2000). Single case studies in psychotherapy research. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 16,274-280.
11. 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.
12. Harrop, J. W., & Velicer, W. F. (1985). A comparison of alternative approaches to the analysis of interrupted time-series. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 20,27-44.
13. Huitema, B. E., & McKean, J. W. (2000). Design specification issues in time-series intervention models. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 60,38-58.
14. Huitema, B. E., & McKean, J. W. (2007a). Identifying autocorrelation generated by various error processes in interrupted time-series progression designs: A comparison of AR1 and portmanteau tests. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 67, 447-459.
15. Huitema, B. E., & McKean, J. W. (2007b). An improved portmanteau test for autocorrelated errors in interrupted time-series regression models. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 343-349.
16. Huitema, B. E., McKean, J. W., & McKnight, S. (1999). Autocorrelation effects on least-squares intervention analysis of short time series. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 59, 767-786.
17. Jenson, W. R., Clark, E., Kjrcher, J. C, & Kristjansson, S. D. (2007). Statistical reform: Evidence-based practice, meta-analyses, and single subject designs. Psychology in the Schools, 44, 483-493.
18. Kazdin, A. (1978). Methodological and interpretive problems of single-case experimental designs. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 46,629-642.
19. Kirk, R. E. (1996). Practical significance: A concept whose time has come. Educational & Psychological Measurement, 56,746-759.
20. Kratochwill, T. R., & Brody, G. H. (1978). Single subject designs: A perspective on the controversy over employing statistical inference and implications for research and training in behavior modification. Behavior Modification, 2,291-307.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. Manolov, R., & Solanas, A. (2008). Comparing N = 1 effect size indices in presence of autocorrelation. Behavior Modification, 32, 860-875.
24. Manolov, R., Solanas, A., & Leiva, D. (in press). Comparing "visual" effect size indices for single-case designs. Methodology-European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral & Social Sciences.
25. Matyas T.A., & GREENnWoOD K. M. (1990). Visual analysis for single-case time series: Effects of variability, serial dependence, and meg-nitude of intervention effects. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23,341-351.
26. McClEary, R., & HAY, R. A., Jr. (1980). Applied time series analysis for the social sciences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
27. McGrath, R. E., & MEYER, G. J. (2006). When effect sizes disagree: The case of r and d. Psychological Methods, 11,386-401.
28. Mioceri, T. (1989). The unicorn, the normal curve, and other improbable creatures. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 156-166.
29. PARKER, R. L, & BROSSART, D. F. (2003). Evaluating single-case research data: A comparison of seven statistical methods. Behavior Therapy,34, 189-211.
30. Parker, R. L, BROSSART, D. F., VANNEST, K. J., LONG, J. R., GARCIA DE-AlBA, R., BAUGH, F. G., & SULLIVAN, J. R. (2005). Effect sizes in single case research: How large is large? School Psychology Review, 34, 116-132.
31. PARKER, R. L, Cryer, J., & Byrns, G. (2006). Controlling baseline trend in single-case research. School Psychology Quarterly, 21,418-443.
32. Parker R. I, HAGAN-BURKE, S., & Vannest, K. (2007). Percentage of all non-overlapping data: An alternative to PMD. 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. Schlosser, R. W.,Lee, D. L, & Wendt, O. (2008). Application of the percentage of non-overlapping data (PMD) in systematic reviews and meta analyses: A systematic review of reporting characteristics. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment & Intervention, 2, 163-187.
35. SCHLOSSER, R. W., & SIGAFOOS, J. (2008). Meta-analysis of single-subject designs: Why now? Evidence-Based Communication Assessment & Intervention, 2, 117-119.
36. SCHNEIDER, N., GOLDSTEIN, H., & PARKER, R. (2008). Social skills interventions for children with autism: A meta-analytic application of percentage of all non-overlapping data (PAND). Evidence-Based Communication Assessment & Intervention, 2, 152-162.
37. SCRUGGS, T. E., & MASTROPIERI, M. A. (1998). Summarizing single-subject research: Issues and applications. Behavior Modification, 22, 221-242.
38. Scruggs, T. E, Mastropieri, M.A., & Casto, G. (1987). The quantitative synthesis of single-subject research: Methodology and validation. Remedial & Special Education, 8, 24-33.
39. Shadish, W. R., Rindskopf D. M., & Hedges, LV. (2008). The state of the science in the mets-analysis of single-case experimental designs. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment & Intervention, 2, 188-196.
40. SYMON, J. B. (2005). Expanding interventions for children with autism: Parents as trainers. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7, 159-173.
41. Tervo, R. C., ESTREM, T. L., BRYSON-BROCKMAN, W., & SYMONS, F. J. (2003). Single-case experimental designs: Application in developmental- behavioral pediatrics. Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 24,438-448.
42. WILKINSON, L, & THE TASK FORCE ON STATISTICAL INFERENCE (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations.Amerlcan PsychologIst, 54,694-704.