The DOI matches its Crossref record; 63 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An improved effect size for single-case research: nonoverlap of all pairs.
Abstract
Nonoverlap of All Pairs (NAP), an index of data overlap between phases in single-case research, is demonstrated and field tested with 200 published AB contrasts. NAP is a novel application of an established effect size known in various forms as Area Under the Curve (AUC), the Common Language Effect Size (CL), the Probability of Superiority (PS), the Dominance Statistic (DS), Mann-Whitney's U, and Sommers D, among others. NAP was compared with 3 other non-overlap-based indices: PND (percent of nonoverlapping data), PEM (percent of data points exceeding the median), and PAND (percent of all nonoverlapping data), as well as Pearson's R(2). Five questions were addressed about NAP: (a) typical NAP values, (b) its ability to discriminate among typical single-case research results, (c) its power and precision (confidence interval width), (d) its correlation with the established effect size index, R(2), and (e) its relationship with visual judgments. Results were positive, the new index equaling or outperforming the other overlap indices on most criteria.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“the effect sizes found in SCED studies are usually higher than those found in group designs such as randomized controlled trials (Parker and Vannest, 2009; Shadish et al., 2016).”
From A Multiple-Baseline Evaluation of Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Focused on Repetitive Negative Thinking for Comorbid Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Depression (2020) · cites this paper as Parker and Vannest, 2009
In the citing paper
“Parker and Vannest (2009) proposed the following ranges in order to interpret NAP; scores ranging from 0 to 0.65 are weak effects, from 0.66 to 0.92 are medium effects, and from 0.93 to 1.0 are large or strong effects.”
From Acceptance and commitment therapy for individuals with depressive and anxiety symptoms following acquired brain injury: A non-concurrent multiple baseline design across four cases. (2023) · cites this paper as Parker and Vannest (2009)
Citations
Cites
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. E., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1270020 · Cited by 99,603
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
Cohen, J. (1990) · Computers Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90050-4 · Cited by 65,417
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.).
Lachenbruch, P. A., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2290095 · Cited by 37,421
An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples)
SHAPIRO, S. S., & WILK, M. B. (1965) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/52.3-4.591 · Cited by 23,480
The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.
Hanley, J. A., & McNeil, B. J. (1982) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiology.143.1.7063747 · Cited by 21,856
Practical Nonparametric Statistics
Groggel, D. J., & Conover, W. J. (2000) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1271101 · Cited by 11,076
The Use of Single-Subject Research to Identify Evidence-Based Practice in Special Education
Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. (2005) · Exceptional Children · doi:10.1177/001440290507100203 · Cited by 3,368
Robust Tests for the Equality of Variances
Brown, M. B., & Forsythe, A. B. (1974) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1974.10482955 · Cited by 3,216
Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations.
Wilkinson, L., & Task Force on Statistical Inference (1999) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.54.8.594 · Cited by 2,791
Graphical Methods for Data Analysis.
Healy, M. J. R., Chambers, J. M., Cleveland, W. S., Kleiner, B., & Tukey, P. A. (1984) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (General) · doi:10.2307/2981587 · Cited by 2,315
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Newson, R. B., 2000. snp15.1: Update to somersd. Stata Technical Bulletin 57: 35. In Stata Technical Bulletin Reprints, vol. 10, 322–323. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Combining nonoverlap and trend for single-case research: Tau-U
Parker, R. I., Vannest, K. J., Davis, J. L., & Sauber, S. B. (2011) · Behavior Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.beth.2010.08.006 · Cited by 1,468
Self-citationEffect Size in Single-Case Research: A Review of Nine Nonoverlap Techniques
Parker, R. I., Vannest, K. J., & Davis, J. L. (2011) · Behavior Modification · doi:10.1177/0145445511399147 · Cited by 841
“Although well-documented limitations exist and call for its abandonment (Kratochwill et al., 2010; Parker & Vannest, 2009), PND (Scruggs et al., 1987) is still widely used and thus included here for comparison.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationEvaluating Intervention Effects in Single‐Case Research Designs
Vannest, K. J., & Ninci, J. (2015) · Journal of Counseling & Development · doi:10.1002/jcad.12038 · Cited by 665
Self-citationSingle-case experimental designs: a systematic review of published research and current standards
Smith, J. D. (2012) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0029312 · Cited by 630
“Visual analysis, following systematic procedures such as those provided by Franklin, Gorman, Beasley, and Allison (1997) and Parsonson and Baer (1978), remains the standard by which SCED data are most commonly analyzed (Parker, Cryer, & Byrns, 2006). Visual analysis can arguably be applied to all SCEDs. However, a num…”
MethodKrasny-Pacini, A., & Evans, J. (2018) · Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.rehab.2017.12.002 · Cited by 373
Metadata
- Authors
- Parker, R. I., & Vannest, K.
- Affiliations
- Texas A&M University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Parker, Richard I.
- ORCID
- Vannest, Kimberly
- Venue
- Behavior Therapy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-12
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 357-367
- ISSN
- 0005-7894 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2028628292
- Cited by
- 1,126
- References
- 65
- Citations by year
- 2026: 61 · 2025: 95 · 2024: 85 · 2023: 97 · 2022: 99 · 2021: 90 · 2020: 87 · 2019: 81 · 2018: 86 · 2017: 84 · 2016: 69 · 2015: 57 · 2014: 49 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 35
- FWCI
- 12.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Behavior Therapy (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
- Keywords
- effect size, single subject research, data overlap, R-squared, visual assessment, confidence interval width, statistical power
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Models, Psychological, Probability, Psychology, Research Design, Confidence Intervals, Area Under Curve
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
