Review: Single-subject clinical-outcome research: designs, data, effect sizes, and analyses

Aphasiology ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 445-473 ◽  
Author(s):  
RANDALL R. ROBEY ◽  
MARTIN C. SCHULTZ ◽  
AMY B. CRAWFORD ◽  
CHERYL A. SINNER
2021 ◽  
pp. 143-154
Author(s):  
Charles Auerbach

Meta-analytic techniques can be used to aggregate evaluation results across studies. In the case of single-subject research designs, we could combine findings from evaluations with 5, 10 or 20 clients to determine, on average, how effective an intervention is. This is a more complex and sophisticated way of understanding differences across studies than reporting those changes qualitatively or simply reporting the individual effect sizes for each study. In this chapter, the authors discuss why meta-analysis is important to consider in single-subject research, particularly in the context of building research evidence. They then demonstrate how to do this using SSD for R functions. Building upon effect sizes, introduced in Chapter 4, the authors illustrate the conditions under which it is appropriate to use traditional effect sizes to conduct meta-analyses, how to introduce intervening variables, and how to evaluate statistical output. Additionally, the authors discuss and illustrate the computation and interpretation of a mean Non-Overlap of All Pairs in situations which traditional effect sizes cannot be used.


Lung Cancer ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 215-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Yang ◽  
Z. Sun ◽  
M.C. Aubry ◽  
F. Kosari ◽  
W. Bamlet ◽  
...  

1998 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 103-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vinson H. Sutlive ◽  
Dale A. Ulrich

The unqualified use of statistical significance tests for interpreting the results of empirical research has been called into question by researchers in a number of behavioral disciplines. This paper reviews what statistical significance tells us and what it does not, with particular attention paid to criticisms of using the results of these tests as the sole basis for evaluating the overall significance of research findings. In addition, implications for adapted physical activity research are discussed. Based on the recent literature of other disciplines, several recommendations for evaluating and reporting research findings are made. They include calculating and reporting effect sizes, selecting an alpha level larger than the conventional .05 level, placing greater emphasis on replication of results, evaluating results in a sample size context, and employing simple research designs. Adapted physical activity researchers are encouraged to use specific modifiers when describing findings as significant.


1985 ◽  
Vol 62 (8) ◽  
pp. 516-522 ◽  
Author(s):  
FRANK L. COLLINS ◽  
RUTH A. BAER ◽  
RONALD L. BLOUNT

2003 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 133-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher F. Sharpley

Although the last 20years have seen a focus upon evidence-based therapies, there are arguments that much of the so-called “evidence” produced is, in fact, irrelevant to the mental health practitioner in the field, principally because of the use of large-scale group designs in clinical controlled studies of the effectiveness of one therapy over another. By contrast, and with particular relevance to the practitioner who is both scientist and therapist, single subject research designs and methodologies for data analysis can be applied in ways that allow for generalisation to everyday practice. To inform the readership, the rationale underlying n = 1 studies is described, with some explanation of the major designs and their application to typical cases in guidance and counselling. Issues of inferential deductions from data, variations of design, data analysis via visual and statistical procedures, and replication are discussed. Finally, a case is argued for the introduction of n = 1 reports within the Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling to better inform the readership about clinical research findings relevant to their practices.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document