Using Single-Case Designs in Practical Settings: Is Within-Subject Replication Always Necessary?

Abstract

Behavior analysts have widely adopted and embraced within-subject replication through the use of reversal and multielement designs. However, the withdrawal of treatment, which is central to these designs, may not be desirable, feasible, or even ethical in practical settings. To examine this issue, we extracted 501 ABAB graphs from theses and dissertations to examine to what extent we would have reached correct or incorrect conclusions if we had based our analysis on the initial AB component only. In our first experiment, we examined the proportion of datasets for which the results of the first AB component matched the results of the subsequent phase reversals. In our second experiment, we calculated three effect size estimates for the same datasets to examine whether these measures could predict the relevance of conducting a withinsubject replication. Our analyses indicated that the initial effects were successfully replicated at least once in approximately 85% of the cases and that effect size may predict the probability of within-subject replication. Overall, our results support the rather controversial proposition that it may be possible to set threshold values of effect size above which conducting a replication could be considered unnecessary. That said, more research is needed to confirm and examine the generalizability of these results prior to recommending changes in practice.

Machine Learning to Analyze Single-Case Data: A Proof of Concept

“…Complete nonsimulated dataset For our initial study, we limited our analyses to graphs with three points in phase A and five points in phase B because (1) graphs with fewer points are typically more difficult to analyze visually and statistically (Manolov & Vannest, 2019) and (2) this arrangement represents the minimum number of points under which the DC method performs satisfactorily (Lanovaz et al, 2017). Our graphs all came from a dataset previously described by Lanovaz, Turgeon, Cardinal, and Wheatley (2019). The Lanovaz et al (2019) dataset contained a total of 501 ABAB graphs extracted from theses and dissertations.…”

Quantifying false positives in simulated events using partial interval recording and momentary time sampling with dual‐criteria methods

“…Regardless, PIR and MTS have many clinical applications and confer several advantages relative to CDR (see Rapp et al, ). As assessment of false positives and/or false negatives continues to be an area of interest in the field of applied behavior analysis (Lanovaz, Turgeon, Cardinal, & Wheatley, ), continued work in this area may yield methodological insights that further contribute to the science of behavior.…”

Using behavior contracts to improve behavior of children and adolescents in multiple settings

“…Using visual analysis only, Lanovaz, Turgeon, Cardinal, and Wheatley (2019) found most A‐B designs, the fundamental units of NMBL designs (Coon & Rapp, 2018), that showed rapid and large changes in the dependent variable during the first B phase later yielded replicable changes in the dependent variable. Thus, we expected any changes in the dependent variable would be visually detectable within three to five data points (i.e., weeks) of introducing behavior contracts.…”