Calculating effect sizes for meta-analysis: The case of the single case∗

Allison, David B.; Gorman, Bernard S.

doi:10.1016/0005-7967(93)90115-b

Cited by 214 publications

(228 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

225

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Regarding detection of effects, one result should be pointed out -the fact that when simulating the same parameter β 3 , both procedures yielded different values according to series length. A similar limitation has been shown for the Allison and Gorman (1993) model and for White et al's (1989) index by Van den Noortgate and Onghena (2003). This finding was expected as the indices quantify mean difference between phases and that a treatment phase slope implies a nonstationary process (i.e., series in which the average level changes systematically with each successive measurement obtained).…”

supporting

confidence: 66%

A comparison of mean phase difference and generalized least squares for analyzing single-case data

Manolov

Solanas

2013

Journal of School Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study focuses on single-case data analysis and specifically on two procedures for quantifying differences between baseline and treatment measurementsThe first technique tested is based on generalized least squares regression analysis and is compared to a proposed non-regression technique, which allows obtaining similar information. The comparison is carried out in the context of generated data representing a variety of patterns (i.e., independent measurements, different serial dependence underlying processes, constant or phase-specific autocorrelation and data variability, different types of trend, and slope and level change). The results suggest that the two techniques perform adequately for a wide range of conditions and researchers can use both of them with certain guarantees. The regression-based procedure offers more efficient estimates, whereas the proposed non-regression procedure is more sensitive to intervention effects. Considering current and previous findings, some tentative recommendations are offered to applied researchers in order to help choosing among the plurality of single-case data analysis techniques.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 66%

A comparison of mean phase difference and generalized least squares for analyzing single-case data

Manolov

Solanas

2013

Journal of School Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Under each condition, the relevant condition-specific word list was cycled through eight times. Eight cycles were thought to be sufficient in terms of yielding usable data concerning growth in naming abilities (after Allison and Gorman, 1993), yet tolerable to participants who volunteered for this study.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Facilitation effects of cueing techniques in two Sesotho speakers with anomia

Archer

Müller

Penn

2016

Speech, Language and Hearing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aphasiologists developing treatments for anomia should closely align therapy methods with the typological and morphological characteristics of the language in question.The lead author initiated this study to develop more defensible interventions for speakers of Sesotho, a South African language. Prefix-based cueing (our alternative name for initial phoneme cueing that describes these cues in Sesotho-oriented terms) was compared to a novel technique, root-based cueing (RBC). While prefix-based cues are described in the literature, we hypothesized root-based cues would be more appropriate in this context since they were thought to be more consonant with the linguistic parameters of Sesotho. Two speakers with aphasia, who demonstrated significant anomic symptoms, served as participants. We used a multiple-baseline, single case study design. Two 144-item word lists were developed with every item represented by a photograph. Each of the two word lists was associated with one of the two cueing techniques investigated. After baseline measurements were obtained, each participant attended eight facilitation sessions for each cueing condition, resulting in eight data points per condition and participant. For both participants, RBC resulted in greater naming performance than cueing by means of initial phonemes. Our explanation of these results is based on the Interactive Lexical Network model of lexical access; root-based cues may be more effective because they more efficiently constrain the number of lemmas activated after a cue is provided. We argue that a confluence of factors (word-retrieval processes and the character of Sesotho morphosyntax) gave rise to the noted differences in naming facilitation.

show abstract

“…These two proposals are related to Scruggs and Mastropieri's (1998) suggestion to perform only those comparisons that maintain the A-B sequence. As another option, a recent comparison between Tau-U and Allison and Gorman's (1993) regression model was performed only on MBDs (Ross & Begeny, 2014). …”

Section: Applicability Of the Proposals To Different Design Structuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Further developments in summarising and meta-analysing single-case data: An illustration with neurobehavioural interventions in acquired brain injury

Manolov

Rochat

2015

Neuropsychological Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Calculating effect sizes for meta-analysis: The case of the single case∗

Cited by 214 publications

References 20 publications

A comparison of mean phase difference and generalized least squares for analyzing single-case data

A comparison of mean phase difference and generalized least squares for analyzing single-case data

Facilitation effects of cueing techniques in two Sesotho speakers with anomia

Further developments in summarising and meta-analysing single-case data: An illustration with neurobehavioural interventions in acquired brain injury

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About