Meta-Analysis of Single-Case Design Research: Introduction to the Special Issue

Journal of Behavioral Education

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 175-184

  Burns, Matthew K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

Effect size; Evidence based practice; Meta analysis

Indexed keywords

EID: 84865413776     PISSN: 10530819     EISSN: 15733513     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10864-012-9158-9     Document Type: Editorial

References (36)

1. American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Evidence-based Practice. (2006). Evidence-based practice in psychology. American Psychologist, 61, 271-285.
2. American Psychological Association Task Force on Evidence-Based Practice for Children and Adolescents. (2008). Disseminating evidence-based practice for children and adolescents: A systems approach to enhancing care. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
3. Baer, D. M. (1977). Reviewer's comment: Just because it's reliable doesn't mean that you can use it. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 117-119.
4. Barlow, D. H., & Hayes, S. C. (1979). Alternating treatments design: One strategy for comparing the effects of two treatments in a single subject. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 12, 199-210.
5. Baron, A., & Derenne, A. (2000). Quantitative summaries of single-subject studies: What do group comparisons tell us about individual performances? Behavior Analyst, 23, 101-106.
6. Berliner, D. C. (2002). Educational research: The hardest science of all. Educational Researcher, 31, 18-20.
7. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis: Statistics in practice. New York: Wiley.
8. Burns, M. K., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2009). Reported prevalence of evidence-based instructional practices in special education. The Journal of Special Education, 43, 3-11.
9. Busk, P. L., & Serlin, R. C. (1992). Meta-analysis for single-case research. In T. R. Kratochwill & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Single-case research design and analysis: New directions for psychology and education (pp. 187-212). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally.
11. Cook, B. G., Tankersley, M., & Landrum, T. J. (2009). Determining evidence-based practices in special education. Exceptional Children, 75, 365-383.
12. Cooper, H. (2010). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: A step by step approach (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13. Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. V. (2009). Research synthesis as a scientific process. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 3-18). New York: Sage.
14. Cooper, A., Levin, B., & Campbell, C. (2009). The growing (but still limited) importance of evidence in education policy and practice. Journal of Educational Change, 10(2-3), 159-171.
15. Cordray, D. S., & Morphy, P. (2009). Research synthesis and public policy. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 473-494). New York: Sage.
16. Dunkin, M. J. (1996). Types of errors in synthesizing research in education. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 87-97.
17. Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5, 3-8.
18. Hattie, J. A. C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.
19. Heward, W. L. (2008). A place at the educational reform table: Why behavior analysis needs to be there, why it's not as welcome as it should be, and some actions that can make our science more relevant. ABAI Newsletter, 31(3). Portage, MI. Available online at http://www. abainternational. org/ABA/newsletter/vol313/Heward. asp.
20. Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005). The use of single subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165-179.
21. Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (2000). Policy decisions in special education: The role of meta-analysis. In R. Gersten, E. P. Schiller, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Contemporary special education research: Syntheses of knowledge base on critical instructional issues (pp. 281-326). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
22. Kratochwill, T. R., Hitchcock, J., Horner, R. H., Levin, J. R., Odom, S. L., Rindskopf, D. M., et al. (2010). Single-case designs technical documentation. Retrieved from What Works Clearinghouse website: http://ies. ed. gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/wwc_scd. pdf.
23. Levant, R. F., Barlow, D. H., David, K. W., Hagglund, K. J., Hollon, S. D., Johnson, J. D., et al. (2006). Evidence-based practice in psychology. American Psychologist, 61, 271-285.
24. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
25. Lochman, J. E. (2003). Commentary: School contextual influences on the dissemination of interventions. School Psychology Review, 32, 174-177.
26. Matt, G. E., & Cook, T. D. (2009). Threats to the validity of generalized inferences. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed., pp. 538-5578). New York: Sage.
27. Myles, F. S., Allison, D. B., & Gorman, B. S. (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). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
28. Parker, R. I., Hagan-Burke, S., & Vannest, K. (2007). Percentage of all non-overlapping data (PAND): An alternative to PND. The Journal of Special Education, 40, 194-204.
29. Parker, R. I., & Vannest, K. (2009). An improved effect size for single-case research: Nonoverlap of all pairs. Behavior Therapy, 40, 357-367.
30. Riley-Tillman, T. C., & Burns, M. K. (2009). Evaluating educational interventions: Single-case design for measuring response to intervention. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
31. Rothwell, P. M. (2005). External validity of randomized control trials: "To whom do the results of this trial apply?". The Lancet, 365(9453), 82-93.
32. Salzberg, C. L., Strain, P. S., & Baer, D. M. (1987). Meta-analysis for single-subject research: When does it clarify, when does it obscure. Remedial and Special Education, 8, 43-48.
33. Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & Casto, G. (1987). The quantitative synthesis of single-subject research: Methodology and validation. Remediate and Special Education, 8, 24-33.
34. Shadish, W. R., Rindskopf, D. M., & Hedges, L. V. (2008). The state of the science in the meta-analysis of single-case experimental designs. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 2, 188-196.
35. Wandersman, A., Duffy, J., Flaspohler, P., Noonan, R., Lubell, K., Stillman, L., et al. (2008). Bridging the gap between prevention research and practice: The interactive systems framework for dissemination and implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 171-181.
36. White, O. (1987). The quantitative synthesis of single-subject research: Method and validation: Comment. Remedial and Special Education, 8, 34-39.