Cited by 194Behavioral and Psychological StudiesStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference

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

ROBEY, RANDALL R., SCHULTZ, MARTIN C., CRAWFORD, AMY B., SINNER, CHERYL A.·1999·Aphasiology

Abstract

In the last 20 years, single-subject research designs have become important forms of aphasia-treatment research for assessing the effectiveness of treatment on a subject-by-subject (or patient-by-patient) basis. In that time, several important developments in the statistical literature centring on the reliability and validity of single-subject research have occurred. This work assesses the state of aphasia-treatment single-subject research in the context of that scholarship and proposes recommendations for future applications through a tutorial-like presentation. This paper details the analysis of published single subject results and proposes recommendations concerning future applications of single-subject designs. The work focuses on four domains: designs, data, effect sizes, and analyses. The findings indicate that aphasia-treatment singlesubject studies, which are well designed for the most part, yield a short series of autocorrelated data manifesting generally large treatment effects. However, only one analysis satisfactorily controlled Type I and Type II errors under typical clinical-aphasiology applications. That procedure, ITSACORR, is easily accomplished and it expresses outcome in familiar terms. To facilitate understanding, the review promotes a hands-on understanding of the various analysis options through worked examples and clarifies the (in)appropriateness of each procedure for clinical applications. Although the focus of the work is treatment for aphasia, the central thesis has general application across disorder categories.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/026870399402028

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Robey's meta-analyses found a positive treatment effect, but they separated studies by design and aimed to identify effect sizes for different conditions.

    “Robey’s hallmark meta-analyses2,4,5 showed a positive aphasia treatment effect, but were segregated by study design and focused on identifying the effect size for different conditions (e.g., treated vs untreated recovery).”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 115 · Cited by 194

Authors
ROBEY, R. R., SCHULTZ, M. C., CRAWFORD, A. B., & SINNER, C. A.
Affiliations
University of Virginia (US)
Venue
Aphasiology
Published
1999-06
Volume
13
Issue
6
Pages
445-473
ISSN
  • 0268-7038 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-5041
OpenAlex
W2005976353
Cited by
194
References
115
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 10
FWCI
7.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Aphasiology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Keywords
single-case experimental design, aphasia rehabilitation, treatment effectiveness, autocorrelated data, effect size

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