Review: single-subject clinical-outcome research: designs, data, effect sizes, and analyses
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
Cites
Statistics
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?
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).”
From Benchmarks of Significant Change After Aphasia Rehabilitation (2019) · cites this paper as [5]
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
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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