Regression-based techniques for statistical decision making in single-case designs;Técnicas fundamentadas en la regresión para la decisión estadística en diseños de caso único

Psicothema

Volumn 22, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 1026-1032

  Manolov, Rumen ^a   Arnau, Jaume ^a   Solanas, Antonio ^a   Bono, Roser ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BARCELONA   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; DECISION MAKING; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PSYCHOMETRY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; STATISTICS; THEORETICAL MODEL;

ALGORITHMS; BEHAVIOR; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PSYCHOMETRICS; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 78549244422     PISSN: 02149915     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Algina, J., & Keselman, H.J. (1998). A power comparison of the Welch-James and improved general approximation tests in the split-plot design. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 23, 152-169.
2. Allison, D.B., & Gorman, B.S. (1993). Calculating effect sizes for metaanalysis: The case of the single case. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 31, 621-631.
3. Arnau, J., & Bono, R. (2004). Evaluating effects in short time series: Alternative models of analysis. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 98, 419-432.
4. 2-change effect size indices for single-subject experimental designs. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 2, 120-128.
5. Bradley, J.V. (1977). A common situation conducive to bizarre distribution shapes. American Statistician, 31, 147-150.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9. Cohen, J. (1990). Things I have learned (so far). American Psychologist, 45, 1304-1312.
10. Cohen, J. (1994). The earth is round (p<.05). American Psychologist, 49, 997-1003.
11. Crosbie, J. (1987). The inability of the binomial test to control Type I error with single-subject data. Behavioral Assessment, 9, 141-150.
12. DeCarlo, L.T., & Tryon, W.W. (1993). Estimating and testing correlation with small samples: A comparison of the C-statistic to modified estimator. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 31, 781-788.
13. Durbin, J., & Watson, G.S. (1971). Testing for serial correlation in least squares regression. III. Biometrika, 58, 1-19.
14. Edgington, E.S., & Onghena, P. (2007). Randomization tests (4th ed.). London: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
15. Ferron, J., & Ware, W. (1995). Analyzing single-case data: The power of randomization tests. The Journal of Experimental Education, 63, 167-178.
16. Fisher, W.W., Kelley, M.E., & Lomas, J.E. (2003). Visual aids and structured criteria for improving visual inspection and interpretation of single-case designs. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 387-406.
17. Gorsuch, R.L. (1983). Three methods for analyzing limited time-series (N of 1) data. Behavioral Assessment, 5, 141-154.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. Huitema, B.E. (1985). Autocorrelation in behavior analysis: A myth. Behavioral Assessment, 7, 107-118.
21. Huitema, B.E., & McKean, J.W. (1998). Irrelevant autocorrelation in least squares intervention models. Psychological Methods, 3, 104-116.
22. Huitema, B.E., & McKean, J.W. (2000). Design specification issues in time-series intervention models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 38-58.
23. Johnston, J.M., & Pennypacker, H.S. (2008). Strategies and tactics of behavioral research (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
24. Kazdin, A. (1978). Methodological and interpretive problems of single-case experimental designs. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 629-642.
25. Keselman, J.C., & Keselman, H.J. (1990). Analysing unbalanced repeated measures designs. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 43, 265-282.
26. Kowalchuk, R.K., Keselman, H.J., Algina, J., & Wolfinger, R.D. (2004). The analysis of repeated measurements with mixed-model adjusted F tests. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 224-241.
27. Maddala, G.S., & Lahiri, K. (2007). Introduction to econometrics (3rd ed.). London: John Wiley & Sons.
28. Manolov, R., & Solanas, A. (2008a). Comparing N= 1 effect size indices in presence of autocorrelation. Behavior Modification, 32, 860-875.
29. Manolov, R., & Solanas, A. (2008b). Randomization tests for ABAB designs: Comparing data-division-specific and common distributions. Psicothema, 20, 291-297.
30. 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.
31. Matyas, T.A., & Greenwood, K.M. (1997). Serial dependency in singlecase 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.
32. McKnight, S.D., McKean, J.W., & Huitema, B.E. (2000). A double bootstrap method to analyze linear models with autoregressive error terms. Psychological Methods, 3, 87-101.
33. Micceri, T. (1989). The unicorn, the normal curve and other improbable creatures. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 156-166.
34. Parker, R.I. (2006). Increased reliability for single-case research results: Is bootstrap the answer? Behavior Therapy, 37, 326-338.
35. Parker, R.I., & Brossart, D.F. (2003). Evaluating single-case research data: A comparison of seven statistical methods. Behavior Therapy, 34, 189-211.
36. Parker, R.I., Brossart, D.F., Vannest, K.J., Long, J.R., García 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.
37. Sawilowsky, S.S., & Blair, R.C. (1992). A more realistic look at the robustness and Type II error properties of the t test to departures from population normality. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 352-360.
38. Scheffé, H. (1959). The analysis of variance. New York, NJ: Wiley. Serlin, R.C. (2000). Testing for robustness in Monte Carlo studies. Psychological Methods, 5, 230-240.
39. Sharpley, C.F., & Alavosius, M.P. (1988). Autocorrelation in behavior data: An alternative perspective. Behavioral Assessment, 10, 243-251.
40. Simonton, D.K. (1977a). Cross-sectional time-series experiments: Some suggested statistical analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 489-502.
41. Simonton, D.K. (1977b). Erratum to Simonton. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 1097.
42. Simonton, D.K. (1978). Erratum to Simonton. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1000.
43. Solanas, A., Manolov, R., & Onghena, P. (2010). Estimating slope and level change in N= 1 designs. Behavior Modification, 34, 195-218.
44. Suen, H.K., & Ary, D. (1987). Autocorrelation in behavior analysis: Myth or reality? Behavioral Assessment, 9, 150-130.
45. 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.
46. Tryon, W.W. (1982). A simplified time-series analysis for evaluating treatment interventions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15, 423-429.
47. White, O.R. (1974). The «split-middle»: A «quickie» method of trend estimation. Seattle, WA: University of Washington.
48. 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.
49. Wilkinson, L., & Task Force on Statistical Inference (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54, 694-704.