Cited by 53Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsAdvanced Causal Inference TechniquesBehavioral and Psychological Studies

A Priori Justification for Effect Measures in Single-Case Experimental Designs

Open access
Manolov, Rumen, Moeyaert, Mariola, Fingerhut, Joelle E.·2022·Perspectives on Behavior Science

Abstract

Due to the complex nature of single-case experimental design data, numerous effect measures are available to quantify and evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention. An inappropriate choice of the effect measure can result in a misrepresentation of the intervention effectiveness and this can have far-reaching implications for theory, practice, and policymaking. As guidelines for reporting appropriate justification for selecting an effect measure are missing, the first aim is to identify the relevant dimensions for effect measure selection and justification prior to data gathering. The second aim is to use these dimensions to construct a user-friendly flowchart or decision tree guiding applied researchers in this process. The use of the flowchart is illustrated in the context of a preregistered protocol. This is the first study that attempts to propose reporting guidelines to justify the effect measure choice, before collecting the data, to avoid selective reporting of the largest quantifications of an effect. A proper justification, less prone to confirmation bias, and transparent and explicit reporting can enhance the credibility of the single-case design study findings.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40614-021-00282-2

Cites

172 of 173 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 175 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Brossart, D. F., Laird, V. C., & Armstrong, T. W. (2018). Interpreting Kendall ' s Tau and Tau-U for singlecase experimental designs. Cogent Psychology, 5 (1), Article 1518687. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311908. 2018.1518687. · DOI
  2. Busk, P. L., & Serlin, R. C. (1992). Meta-analysis for single-case research. In T. R. Kratochwill & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Single-case research designs and analysis: New directions for psychology and education (pp. 187 -212). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  3. Ferron, J. M., Hogarty, K. Y., Dedrick, R. F., Hess, M. R., Niles, J. D., & Kromrey, J. D. (2008). Reporting results from multilevel analyses. In A. A. O ' Connell & D. B. McCoach (Eds.), Multilevel modeling of educational data (pp. 391 -426). Information Age Publishing.
  4. Onghena, P. (2020). One by one: The design and analysis of replicated randomized single-case experiments. In R. van de Schoot & M. Mio č evi ć (Eds.), Small sample size solutions: A guide for applied researchers and practitioners (pp. 87 -101). Routledge.
  5. Riley-Tillman, T. C., Burns, M. K., & Kilgus, S. P. (2020). Evaluating educational interventions: Single-case design for measuring response to intervention (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
  6. Swaminathan, H., Rogers, H. J., Horner, R., Sugai, G., & Smolkowski, K. (2014b). Regression models for the analysis of single case designs. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 24 (3 -4), 554 -571. https://doi.org/10. 1080/09602011.2014.887586.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Manolov, R., Moeyaert, M., & Fingerhut, J. E.
Affiliations
  • Universitat de Barcelona (ES)
  • State University of New York (US)
Corresponding author
Manolov, Rumen
Venue
Perspectives on Behavior Science
Published
2021-03-25
Volume
45
Issue
1
Pages
153-186
ISSN
  • 2520-8969 (ISSN-L)
  • 2520-8977
OpenAlex
W3136855749
Cited by
53
References
175
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 2
FWCI
5.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Perspectives on Behavior Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Dipòsit Digital de la Universitat de Barcelona (Universitat de Barcelona) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
Keywords
single-case experimental design, effect measures, a priori justification, reporting guidelines, decision tree, flowcharts, preregistration, selective reporting, confirmation bias, intervention effectiveness, research transparency

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review