No abstract

Previous research has introduced several effect size measures (ESMs) to quantify data aspects of single-case experimental designs (SCEDs): level, trend, variability, overlap, and immediacy. In the current article, we extend the existing literature by introducing two methods for quantifying consistency in single-case A-B-A-B phase designs. The first method assesses the consistency of data patterns across phases implementing the same condition, called CONsistency of DAta Patterns (CONDAP). The second measure assesses the consistency of the five other data aspects when changing from baseline to experimental phase, called CONsistency of the EFFects (CONEFF). We illustrate the calculation of both measures for four A-B-A-B phase designs from published literature and demonstrate how CONDAP and CONEFF can supplement visual analysis of SCED data. Finally, we discuss directions for future research.

Single-case experiments have become increasingly popular in psychological and educational research. However, the analysis of single-case data is often complicated by the frequent occurrence of missing or incomplete data. If missingness or incompleteness cannot be avoided, it becomes important to know which strategies are optimal, because the presence of missing data or inadequate data handling strategies may lead to experiments no longer "meeting standards" set by, for example, the What Works Clearinghouse. For the examination and comparison of strategies to handle missing data, we simulated complete datasets for ABAB phase designs, randomized block designs, and multiple-baseline designs. We introduced different levels of missingness in the simulated datasets by randomly deleting 10%, 30%, and 50% of the data. We evaluated the type I error rate and statistical power of a randomization test for the null hypothesis that there was no treatment effect under these different levels of missingness, using different strategies for handling missing data: (1) randomizing a missing-data marker and calculating all reference statistics only for the available data points, (2) estimating the missing data points by single imputation using the state space representation of a time series model, and (3) multiple imputation based on regressing the available data points on preceding and succeeding data points. The results are conclusive for the conditions simulated: The randomized-marker method outperforms the other two methods in terms of statistical power in a randomization test, while keeping the type I error rate under control.

Single-case experimental designs (SCEDs) have become a popular research methodology in educational science, psychology, and beyond. The growing popularity has been accompanied by the development of specific guidelines for the conduct and analysis of SCEDs. In this paper, we examine recent practices in the conduct and analysis of SCEDs by systematically reviewing applied SCEDs published over a period of three years (2016)(2017)(2018). Specifically, we were interested in which designs are most frequently used and how common randomization in the study design is, which data aspects applied single-case researchers analyze, and which analytical methods are used. The systematic review of 423 studies suggests that the multiple baseline design continues to be the most widely used design and that the difference in central tendency level is by far most popular in SCED effect evaluation. Visual analysis paired with descriptive statistics is the most frequently used method of data analysis. However, inferential statistical methods and the inclusion of randomization in the study design are not uncommon. We discuss these results in light of the findings of earlier systematic reviews and suggest future directions for the development of SCED methodology.

Health problems are often idiosyncratic in nature and therefore require individualized diagnosis and treatment. In this paper, we show how single-case experimental designs (SCEDs) can meet the requirement to find and evaluate individually tailored treatments. We give a basic introduction to the methodology of SCEDs and provide an overview of the available design options. For each design, we show how an element of randomization can be incorporated to increase the internal and statistical conclusion validity and how the obtained data can be analyzed using visual tools, effect size measures, and randomization inference. We illustrate each design and data analysis technique using applied data sets from the healthcare literature.

Visual analysis and nonoverlap-based effect sizes are predominantly used in analyzing single case experimental designs (SCEDs). Although they are popular analytical methods for SCEDs, they have certain limitations. In this study, a new effect size calculation model for SCEDs, named performance criteria-based effect size (PCES), is proposed considering the limitations of 4 nonoverlap-based effect size measures, widely accepted in the literature and that blend well with visual analysis. In the field test of PCES, actual data from published studies were utilized, and the relations between PCES, visual analysis, and the 4 nonoverlap-based methods were examined. In determining the data to be used in the field test, 1,052 tiers (AB phases) were identified from 6 journals. The results revealed a weak or moderate relation between PCES and nonoverlap-based methods due to its focus on performance criteria. Although PCES has some weaknesses, it promises to eliminate the causes that may create issues in nonoverlap-based methods, using quantitative data to determine socially important changes in behavior and to complement visual analysis.

Multilevel models (MLMs) have been proposed in single-case research, to synthesize data from a group of cases in a multiplebaseline design (MBD). A limitation of this approach is that MLMs require several statistical assumptions that are often violated in single-case research. In this article we propose a solution to this limitation by presenting a randomization test (RT) wrapper for MLMs that offers a nonparametric way to evaluate treatment effects, without making distributional assumptions or an assumption of random sampling. We present the rationale underlying the proposed technique and validate its performance (with respect to Type I error rate and power) as compared to parametric statistical inference in MLMs, in the context of evaluating the average treatment effect across cases in an MBD. We performed a simulation study that manipulated the numbers of cases and of observations per case in a dataset, the data variability between cases, the distributional characteristics of the data, the level of autocorrelation, and the size of the treatment effect in the data. The results showed that the power of the RT wrapper is superior to the power of parametric tests based on F distributions for MBDs with fewer than five cases, and that the Type I error rate of the RT wrapper is controlled for bimodal data, whereas this is not the case for traditional MLMs.Keywords Multiple-baseline design . Multilevel model . Randomization test . Power analysis . Monte Carlo simulation study Multilevel models 1 (MLMs) are frequently used to analyze nested data in various subfields of the behavioral and the social sciences. Examples of this type of data include repeated measurements of individuals in longitudinal research, students that are nested in schools in educational research, or employees that are nested in companies in organizational psychology. MLMs have also been proposed for the statistical analysis of single-case experimental designs (SCEDs;

The current paper presents a systematic review of consistency in single-case ABAB phase designs. We applied the CONsistency of DAta Patterns (CONDAP) measure to a sample of 460 data sets retrieved from 119 applied studies published over the past 50 years. The main purpose was to (1) identify typical CONDAP values found in published ABAB designs and (2) develop interpretational guidelines for CONDAP to be used for future studies to assess the consistency of data patterns from similar phases. The overall distribution of CONDAP values is right-skewed with several extreme values to the right of the center of the distribution. The B-phase CONDAP values fall within a narrower range than the A-phase CONDAP values. Based on the cumulative distribution of CONDAP values we offer the following interpretational guidelines in terms of consistency: very high, 0 ≤ CONDAP ≤ 0.5; high, 0.5 < CONDAP ≤ 1; medium, 1 < CONDAP < 1.5; low, 1.5 < CONDAP ≤ 2; very low, CONDAP > 2. We give examples of combining CONDAP benchmarks with visual analysis of single-case ABAB phase designs and conclude that the majority of data patterns (41.2%) in published ABAB phase designs is medium consistent.