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.